The first step is to measure what can be easily measured. This is okay as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which cannot be measured, or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what cannot be measured really is not very important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what cannot be measured does not really exist. This is suicide. ~ Daniel Yankelovich, quoted by John Bogle in “Enough”.

This quote really hit home with me this morning. I immediately thought how this explains what I mean when I say that the corporate mindset has invaded the church. This concept – counting rather than trust- is exactly what has happened in most of the evangelical world that has bought into the church growth model for ministry. It is reflected in the dark side of contemporary worship, and in the broken lives that are the inevitable result of church leaders who adopt an “assimilate or eliminate” methodology. It is the logical outcome of their philosophy; what cannot be counted does not matter.

People are not just numbers. When we use language that reduces people to a statistic, we devalue them by default. They are supposed to be our brothers & sisters. They are supposed to be family. Not target groups. Not “envelope 705″. Not just an entry in a cell in a spreadsheet in a computer. Not just “magnetic ink” for “our great computer”. We are more than that.

Grace and counting don’t mix too well. It’s difficult to exercise grace when you are focused on numbers. It’s impossible to dispense grace when the little things that matter to your people are considered to be obstacles to church growth. It is the hired man who puts numbers ahead of people and relationships.

Years ago I remember hearing a pastor complain about praying for “Aunt Millie’s toe”. It was a euphemism for all of the little prayer requests deemed too insignificant to bother God with. He wanted to pray for big things, important things, things that would change the world. And there it is I thought, the corporate mentality. The “Aunt Millies” of the church were just numbers to him. Just old folks in the way.

I hope that God uses the current financial crisis to draw people to Him and His church. I hope that He draw the “up and coming” along with the “Aunt Millies” of the world. And I hope that the people who wish the older saints were out of the way would take a time out from their counting to appreciate people who can’t do a thing for them. I hope they learn how to be real shepherds. I hope that the people in the pews learn to “one another” each other. And I hope that the focus on numbers fades away, and we all look to Christ for refuge and strength.

In Him,
Doug

 In David Wells’ great book, The Courage to be Protestant, he discusses the inherent neo-paganism in American religion.  “The assumption that we all have a natural access to the sacred is as old as the oldest forms of paganism.”  This, writes Wells, is the assumption of many Americans, that we can get to God our way, right away.  But Wells notes two new elements (hence ‘neo’-paganism) of religion today.  First, the centuries-old  paganism was a religion wherein people were afraid of most of the gods. 

“By contrast, we are unafraid of the sacred today.  More than that, we feel that the sacred will be pleased to have us, will spread out the welcome mat, so to speak, and be grateful for our attention.”

The second ‘neo’ to today’s paganism “is our consumer mentality.”

“As consumers we expect to get what we want immediately, without waiting, on our own terms, and with the right of return.  That is the mind-set that now invades the spiritual quest, as it does also many of our churches.  …Today we come confidently seeking, assuming an instant welcome, an immediate access when we have time for this in the midst of our busy lives. …We expect access to the sacred without cost, without thought, without pain, without waiting.  We have learned this in the malls.  After all, this is our right.  It is also our right to walk away from our experience of the divine if we are not satisfied.”

Wells continues.

“And many of us do [walk away unsatisfied].  To see this at work we need not look for strange cults or covens.  It is there among our most ordinary neighbors.  It is going on at the next desk over on the office floor, in break rooms, in meditation rooms, and on the way home in the car.”

Let me give just one more paragraph along this line.

“And it is going on in the garden-variety evangelical church of a seeker-sensitive, [conservative protestant - my addition!], or emergent kind.  There you can see this very same consumer spirituality at work, completely unafraid, buying, matching product to need, at work in all these ways.  Instant access!  An experience to be sized up.  Help when we want it, but on our own terms.”

I’ve quoted from this book before, and again, I deeply appreciated it.  The book was painful at times, because Wells’ critique is penetrating and deep; it was also painful because the finger was pointed at me!  Even if you don’t agree with Wells in this book, I encourage you to read it and let it chuck you around.  I’d love to see an “old-school” presbyterian/reformed guy/gal, a mega-church guy/gal, and an emergent guy/gal discuss this book cordially over coffee! 

Above quotes taken from pages 188-189 of The Courage to be Protestant.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

You heard that right—Red Letter Christians are the True Cause of world poverty. This is the logical conclusion to the Neo-Marxism of Red Letter Christianity. Neo-Marxism being linked with chronic poverty of Third World Countries and the  Third Way of the Emerging Apostate Pastors—this conclusion is not only logical but obvious. Here is what Saint Brannon Howse, Gruppenführer of the Calvinazi GOIPview Weekend had to say a few years ago about Red Letter Christians and liberals’ roles in causing world poverty:

“Hurricane Katrina has brought to the nation’s attention the plight of the poor in America. While Jesse Jackson and other liberals attempt to blame poverty on racism and the President and other republicans look to throw money at the problem, few are discussing who and what are really to blame for the root cause of poverty in America.

The issue is not racism but anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the ACLU, the NEA, the DNC and Barry Lynn and his group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The sad stories of the poor should be laid at the feet of the liberal, anti-God “intellectual elite” known as the secular left.

Decades-long brainwashing by liberal-leaning social engineers has so altered the worldview of the underclass that they have little choice but to live in the mire of their culturally bankrupt caste.”—–Anti-Christian bigotry causes poverty! Separation of Church and State causes poverty! Liberal-leaning social engineers cause poverty!

Astounding isn’t it but wait there’s more Brannon has to add:

Anyone who regards with even a shred of honesty the destruction of unregenerate people in the underclass knows the liberals’ time is up. Their social experiment is as bust as the former Soviet Union’s Communism. The Christian worldview is the hope that is left—and a genuine hope it is. Christians must reach out to the underclass, seek to change hearts, renew minds, and reframe their deformed worldview by showing them the need to embrace Christianity and biblical morality and reject the secular left’s destructive, humanistic, anti-God religious worldview.

We agree that poverty is a sin and in the traditional and Biblical notion that the poor are poor because they are lazy and it is their and Red Letter Christians’ fault that they’re poor.  Red Letter Christians in giving handouts to the poor not only cause their poverty but promote the idea that the sinful lifestyle of slothfulness/laziness is ok in God’s eyes instead of an abomination. Afterall, following Jesus and esteeming His words above the other biblical writers is unbiblical and anti-Christian especially when one holds Jesus’ words about giving to the poor in high regards—for that promotes socialism, communism and a Leftist agenda. What Jesus really meant when He said follow and believe in Him was  to pay lipservice to Him and instead believe in Calvinism and that John Calvin is the Final Prophet, final word and final authority on Christianity and to follow Final President Reagan and the political Gospel of Reaganism. ”The cherished idols idol-ologies beliefs of Brannon Howse and God’s Only Inerrant Party are just that—Calvinazified Reaganism which promotes  The American Jesus, capitalism, every-man-for-himself, exploitation and promotion of the democratic way as well as True Republicans being the only regenerate Saved Elect of God.” This is exactly why we need to send more Todd Friels to Third World countries instead of foolish Red Letter Christians.

In conclusion, follow Jesus, Red Letter Christians, Democrats, Emergents and Liberals go to hell–follow John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Brannon Howse, the Republican agenda, Ken Silva, Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, all online discernmentalists, God’s Only Inerrant Party and us (OD Mafia) go to heaven.

In pondering the contrast between modern ministry methodologies and the actual Word of God:

1. Would God have preserved Sodom, if only they had a “be a better you” book?

2. Was Nineveh spared, because Jonah preached, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?”

3. Were the early churches in shambles, at Paul’s death, because he was not purpose-driven?

4. Was God threatening the churches of Asia Minor, because their leadership principles were lacking?

Asinine! The depth of meaning from each of the above reveals weightier matters nearly lost in preaching today. The lessons contain not the accomplishments made by the schemes of man, but by the Hand of the Lord.

“…’Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit’, says the LORD Almighty.” Zec 4:6

1. God knew Sodom as a city of brazen wickedness (Gen 13:13). “The people were guilty of the most notorious crimes and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts” (John Gill). Their sin was most glaring and grievous before the Lord God (Gen 18:20). No matter the greatness of the city’s sin, God was still willing to spare it with as little as 10 righteous God-fearing citizens. The city failed to produce even 10. God did not grant them principles to better their life or a means to improve their nature. Though he spared Lot’s family, God simply destroyed the city with no message, no hope, and no warning.

Lost Message – God abhors sin and will destroy, without mercy, all that violate their conscience by ardently persisting in it (Rom 1:16-32). In the same way, the earth, and all creation, will be one day violently destroyed with fire and therefore by, through, and because of the Grace of God Christians should love holy and godly in this present evil age (2 Pet 3:10-11, Titus 2:11-12).

2. God told Jonah go to Nineveh and “cry against the city” for “their wickedness has come up before me” (Jon 1:2). The city was a violent place. Jonah’s message, “Because of your great wickedness, you have 40 days until your great city will be overthrown” (Jon 3:4). Though His mercy is clearly seen, there was no message of His love. God did not comfort or encourage the Ninevites nor did He articulate their worth, but His anger. They were struck by the blunt edge of a solemn admonition. The God of all creation was personally displeased (Jon 3:9). They repented and turned to God in humility. God spared the city from His judgment by granting them a warning against their great sin, which they heeded (Jon 3:10).

Lost Message – God will speak strong words of correction and rebuke when he is displeased (Heb 12:5-6). These reprimands are intended to bring repentance, a turning or returning to Him (2 Cor 7:10-11, 2 Tim 3:16) and correction for our souls (Prov 3:11, Heb 12:9). God rebukes those He loves (Rev 3:19).

3. Paul preached an offensive (Gal 5:11) and illogical message (1 Cor 1:18) that stirred disdain from his culture and violent anger from the religious community (Acts 13:50). God established his purpose with the revelation he received from no man (Gal 1:11-16). In addition, the fledgling church struggled to survive as Christians were attacked with gruesome Roman persecution. That which remained, in times of peace, was picked over by false ministers (2 Cor 11:13) who crept in to subvert the Truth (2 Pet 2:1).

Lost Message – All who live Godly will suffer persecution (2 Tim 3:12). There is no escaping the true costly selfless Biblical Christianity seen in the lives of Stephen, Peter, James, Paul and all others “who loved not their lives unto death” (John 12:25, Rev 12:11).

4. The churches of Asia Minor were strongly chastised by the Lord for forsaking their first love (Rev 2:4-5), possessing a lax attitude that tolerated preaching that led His people into sexual sin and idolatry (Rev 2:14 & 20) and maintaining religious practice, but remaining indifferent to it (Rev 3:15-16).

Lost Lesson – The Lord Jesus was not impressed or concerned with the organizational savvy of church leadership. He was not aroused to remove the source of spiritual light from their midst (Rev 2:5), because of a lack of influence. He was sovereignly disturbed by the passivity; which allowed the teaching that led His people into whoredom with the world (Rev 2:14, 15 & 20). He becomes fiercely displeased with the general unfaithfulness of His bride and will repay all according to their deeds (Rev 2:23).

God is a jealous God (2 Cor 11:2) for we are his purchased possession (Eph 1:14) and therefore tempting the Lord God ultimately brings strong retribution (1 Cor 10:9).

The absence of these pivotal and basic doctrinal messages has left Christ’s church impotent against the devastation of sin and the spirit of the world. The incessant and unbalanced heralding of God’s love has created a society of rebels with no fear of God. The profuse delivery of self-centered, man-centered, non-challenging, flesh-friendly, superficial and baseless lectures lay partially to blame for the masses of religious consumers possessing “itchy-ears” (2 Tim 4:3).

In coping with the loss of Divine power, the carnal and apostate have developed clever devices to overcome the lack of Christian influence in the post-modern world. While one may argue, “Observe our numbers, see our leadership and judge our success”, the proper defense should rather be, “Observe our devotion, see our passion and judge our fruit.”

Those who will not heed these warnings will grow weary of this Cry For Repentance, but there is only one answer for the gross error of this Laodicean age:

“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chron 7:14

nun ein letzter beitrag zum emergent forum 2009 was bis heute mittag in erlangen stattgefunden hat. ich will jetzt garnich groß berichten was heute war, das ist schnell erzählt: gottesdienst und vernetzung, punkt.

ich wollte vielmehr ein fazit aus dem wochenende ziehen. nun, mir hat es sehr gut gefallen. nachdem ich schon ein paar jahre die emergenten blogs und bücher lese und mir selbst zu einigen themen gedanken mache, war es nun mehr als notwendig selbst mal dabeizusein. es war richtig toll viele neue leute zu treffen, aber auch ein paar altbekannte. es war toll von den erfahrungen und gedanken anderer menschen zu hören und zu lernen, aber auch zu hinterfragen.

was auffällig an dieser veranstaltung war/ist, das es (um hennis worte zu wählen) „schon ein sehr elitäres ding ist“. den großteil der besucher machten meines erachtens nach schon die denker, theologen und akademiker aus. bei der sprache und anhand der workshopthemen hat man das auch gemerkt. die praktiker waren weniger, oder sind sie einfach weniger in erscheinung getreten? keine ahnung. aber daraus entstand auf dem heimweg noch die frage ob die praxis die theorie oder die theorie die praxis braucht. oder anders: ob es erst die theoretiker sind die sich sachen denken wie sie praktisch funktionieren könnten und dann von praktikern umgesetzt werden, oder umgedreht. fazit des gesprächs war es, das es beides braucht und das ganze wohl ein ewiger kreislauf ist. die praktiker machen was und die theoretiker bringen das ganze sprachlich auf den punkt. damit bin auch ich zufrieden, da ich als praktiker nicht ohne die theorie arbeiten könnte und aber gleichzeitig den theoretokern (neue) probleme/sachverhalte/erfahrungen zuschieben kann.

hier gibts alle bilder vom wochenende:

Emergent Forum 2009

Well, I must say that I have been a little taken aback by the huge response to my last (major) post. I’m not used to that much activity on my blog! I have learned some things from the feedback I received, and my thoughts have developed on points. Here are some of the things that I would like to say, to follow up my previous post:

TO THOSE OFFENDED: I APOLOGIZE

From some private posts and e-mails, I realize that my post was very hurtful, at least to a few people. This was not my intention, and I am sorry. My post was primarily about my journey, and a reaction against my immaturity in a past stage of life. It is always okay to critique yourself and learn from the past – however, I recognize that my language was at times too loose, and others found themselves insulted in what was to be an introspective critique. I also said some strong things against Emergentism which are true in a limited sense, but should have been said more clearly. More on that in a bit.

I guess this has all been a learning experience for me. I am used to sitting down on my computer and just dumping whatever pet-peeve, poem or insight is within me. I am prone to hyperbole and I have been wandering around, changing my perspective every six months or so, trying to find my theological moorings. I have directed all sorts of attacks at the institutional church, church-leaders, church beurocracy, and the Evangelical sub-culture. I have not lost any friends doing this, nor even had negative feedback – one of my pastors actually tracked me down and told me how much he enjoyed “The Sled” (a post which made pastors look ridiculous!). This recent post has made me realize, however, that I should be more careful in how I word things in such a public space – especially when critiquing the Emergent camp.

I cannot help but remember that I became Emergent because of pain. I felt ripped off and stifled by the organized church, and felt that without Emergentism as a safety-net, I would have simply free-fallen into who-knows-where. I remember being very angry at times with people who attacked the Emergent movement without presenting a viable alternative.

All this to say that I am sorry: I misjudged my audience, and I regret causing pain where I have done so.

CLARIFICATION OF THE WORD “EMERGENT”

I mentioned above that my usage of the word “Emergent” could be better defined. Well, this is the problem with the word “Emergent” – nobody knows what in the world it means! Broadly speaking, it is probably accurate that “Emergent” is a reaction against the Evangelicalism of the 80’s and 90’s. Like a teen which wants to break away and find their own identity, my generation (and the generation just older than me) wants to break away from the “Baby-boomer-dominated” churches they grew up in, to create a new Christianity for the future.

Instead of intolerance they want tolerance. Instead of heirarchy they want equality. Instead of dogmatic theology, they want open-ended discussion, mystery, and journey. Instead of perfect leaders and shiny buildings, they want leaders who “let it all hang out” and buildings that make them feel comfortable. Instead of paranoia of those who “drink, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do,” there is an openness to the “vices” not directly forbidden by Scriptures. Instead of a protectionistic “us-vs-them” attitude towards culture, they want to be welcoming to non-Christians. Instead of a difference in dress and music, they want to integrate into society on non-moral issues. Instead of rules, they want personal opinions. Instead of a sheltered perspective, they want a global perspective. Instead of local initiatives, they want global initiatives. Instead of suspicion of Science, they want an openness to new science (evolution, global warming, etc.).

As you can see, the emergent movement is very broad. It is likely that it is even broader than these points, but this is a start.

If you are like me, you are likely looking at that list saying, “So, is he saying that Emergent is bad or good?” From this list, however, you can see that there is room for all sorts of people within Emergentism – there is room for “bad” and “good” stuff.

This was a major flaw of my last post: I spoke out agains all of the Emergent movement. Attacking “Emergentism” is like fighting the tide with a baseball bat: cathartic to the deranged, perhaps, but not terribly productive.

Please allow me to refine my critique.

Everyone who becomes Emergent has a story: usually, there is pain involved. There is usually also an attraction to promises made by the Emergent movement. Thus, there is a push away from the insitutional church, and a pull towards the emergent church. In and of itself, this motivation is not sin (people who stay in the institutional churches also have motivations – but I have spoken amply of that elsewhere). What will one do with one’s motivations? This is the question. More importantly – what will one do when their motivations conflict with Jesus? This is the real heart of the issue.

Perhaps a case-study would be helpful here.

I once heard a leader in the Emergent Village discussing what it takes to become “Emergent.” The gist of his comment was: “Unless you are willing to accept the ministry of a lesbian pastor, you cannot really be emergent. Being emergent is about toleration.” (You can read my visceral reaction to this comment here) What should be glaringly obvious here is that the one thing which is not tolerated is a person who takes a stand. What if a person has a crisis of conscience? What if a person honestly feels that scriptures declare homosexuality to be a sin (Rom. 1) and forbid them from “tolerating” any such person involved in immorality – especially if they are involved in Christian teaching (cf. Rev. 2:20, NASB)? Apparently, at least some “Emergent” people believe that one must at times deny Christ and conscience in order to be a card-carying, true-blue member of the Emergent Movement.

Thus, I think it is accurate to depict three camps within the Emergent movement: those who put culture first, and Jesus infinitely second (the “culture-emergent” camp), those who put Jesus first, and culture infinitely second (the “Jesus-emergent” camp), and those who are as-yet undecided. This middle camp is comfortable and appropriate for a time, but it can never become permanent because even the the decision to remain undecided is itself rejection of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The gist of my last post is that my family and I have been wandering back and forth in this place of indecision for nearly a year now. It was what we needed, it was the journey God had for us. It was a place of healing and maturing. I cannot condemn others in this place, because I do not feel God’s judgment over me for being here. At some point, however, we had to make a choice: we had to decide whether culture or Jesus would have the final say in our lives.

Some may still say that we are Emergent. Perhaps this is true – but that all depends what is meant by that frustrating, floppy word. What is really important to know is that we are followers of Christ, who are explicit about making Jesus Lord of our lives, and seeking to build our family on the foundation of the Bible. Can we still be Emergent and do these things? Certainly – but maybe “conservative” is a better tag for us now. I’ll leave that to others to decide.

The season we are in now seems to be a transition-stage, filled with many life-forming decisions. Here are a few I have been thinking about recently:

1. Being relevant is not enough: I must share Christ, and Him Crucified

There is nothing wrong with learning more about the music, culture and interests of people I am trying to reach for Christ. However, I have to be honest and say that my attempts at “culturally-relevant evangelism” looked more like “trying to be cool” and “making new friends” than real evangelism. If I am terrified to speak the name of Jesus, or share the message of what He has done, it should be obvious that whatever I am doing, it is not evangelism. I have much to learn in this area, and I really need prayer, and to grow in boldness in this area.

2. Equality is a cop-out: God has called me to lead my home

There is something very easy – too easy! – about saying, “I don’t know – what do you think, honey?” It’s not right for me, as the head of our home, to drift along – mind filled with theology and work, hands busy with projects and toys – not really engaging in the important issues of family life until they are raised by my wife. It is also not right for me to test out my wife, to feel out the decision she is leaning towards, then “choose” to go along with her in whatever she thinks is best. This is not acting within my role as head, and it places a burden on her she was not intended to carry. I have a lot to learn in this area, but the teaching ministry of Mark Driscoll has a lot of good resources for this area.

3. Cowardice is not an option: I am called to be the spiritual leader of our family

I don’t like doing family devotions. I don’t like praying in public, or reading the Bible aloud. I feel exposed, vulnerable, ridiculous, and silly. I have been trying to tell myself that I am being considerate to my wife: she doesn’t enjoy these things anymore than I do, and there are wounds from the past to be considered. Scriptures are clear on this point, however: as followers of Christ, we are to “teach God’s Word diligently to our children and to talk of them when we sit in our house and when we walk by the way and when we lie down and when we rise up. We are to bind them (metaphorically, or by tattoo? lol…) as a sign on ours hands and foreheads, and to write them on the doorposts of our house and on our gates” (Deut. 6:7-9). I do not want to be the leader of a home where mentioning the name of “Jesus” is a socially-awkward event, where Bibles are never opened, where prayers are never said. Christ should be to my children as constant as gravity, as visible as the sun, as vital as air, as comfortable as Mommy’s embrace. I will do what I can to provide it.

4. Indefinite indecision on important topics is unacceptable and unethical

In this life, I will probably never know which end-times theory is correct, whether the human is “body-and-soul” or “body-soul-spirit,” or how exactly predestination and free-will fit together. So what? These doctrines don’t change how I wake up in the morning. But then what about Hell? Is it real? Is it as bad as people used to say it is? Is it true that everybody who does not accept the Gospel is going there? There are questions on which perpetual ambiguity and indecision is unethical and unacceptable. If Hell is a myth, we can take a collective sigh of relief. If it is real – if it is true that people all around me, and around the world are falling every day, every minute into an eternal, conscious torment apart from God and apart from hope – then there is no excuse. Basic human compassion demands that I live every waking moment in the light of this terrifying fact, and make evangelism the #1 priority of my life. There are many such life-or-death issues in the Christian faith: I will take the time I need to research out answers, but I cannot get too comfortable with a perpetual indecision.

I could go on, but I hope these points give you an idea of the direction I want to take our family.

The decision has been made: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Now, we are finding ourselves in a season of purging, standing awkwardly around a pit dug under the Oaks of Shechem (cf. Gen. 35). What are the family idols? Let us root them out, let us be rid of them. Let us place them here, under this tree, cover them with earth and never think of them again. Let us move on from this place with renewed focus and passion for our One Lord, Jesus Christ.

Under His Lordship and direction, and on the firm foundation of His word, may we move forward as a family!

nach nur drei monaten in der praktischen arbeit bin ich nun etwas geflasht von den vielen impulsen, fragen, gedankenanstößen, usw. vieles ist interessant, anregend und bringt einen auf neue gedanken bzw. lässt sich alte ideen nochmal neu durchdenken.

heut vormittag, nachdem sich 7 initiativen vorgestellt haben konnte man mit den leuten danach direkt reden. ich war bei daniel ehniss von kubik. da fand ich es sehr interessant wie das projekt entstanden ist, wie sie mit umbrüchen umgehen und wie die struktur dort ist. man kennt ja viele alte methoden wie gemeinde funktioniert, wie visionen umgesetzt werden. aber wie so etwas neu entsteht, aus menschen die ganz einfach bock auf eine bestimmte sache haben – sehr inspirierend.

nach dem mittagessen ging es mit zwei workshops weiter. der erste war zum thema, ja was eigentlich, irgendwas mit missional, bei peter aschoff. auch sehr interessant, was bei mir hängen geblieben ist, das es nachdem eine gemeinde den großen hype erlebt hat, zeit braucht um neues zu entwickeln. dabei soll man auch den karren fröhlich an den baum krachen lassen. ich merk grad das nicht soo viel hängen geblieben ist, zum glück gabs ein gutes handout .

30 minuten später ging es mit einem workshop zum thema evangelisation in der postmoderne. davon war ich etwas enttäuscht, hätte mir mehr revolitionäre diskussionen gewünsch. es wurden viele fragen gestellt die meines erachtens nach schon vor langer zeit gestellt wurden. zb wie man anders evangelisieren kann. da kamen so alte schinken wie zb. die beziehungsevangelisation. dabei stellt sich für mich gerade die frage ob man nicht, sobald man eine methode, ein prinzip oder ein programm hat, das ganze nicht funktionalisiert wird und damit zumindest ein stückweit zweckentfremdet. also ich führe beziehungen zu menschen um der beziehung wegen, nicht mit dem ziel sie irgendwann mit in eine gemeinde zu schleppen. klar würde ich mich darüber freuen, aber es ist nicht sinn und zweck dieser beziehung. soweit dazu.

In Erlangen findet an diesem Wochenende das Emergent Forum statt, ein Treffen des Netzwerks Emergent Deutschland.  Einer der dort angebotenen Workshops hat den Titel

Love without Limits – Emergente Ethik zwischen Bibel und Postmoderne

In der Ankündigung heißt es:

Kann man zwischen kulturbedingten und „ewig gültigen“ Aussagen in der Bibel unterscheiden, und wenn ja, wie? Fragen wie diese wollen wir im Workshop gemeinsam anschauen und konkrete Beispiele wie Sklaverei, die Rolle der Frau und Homosexualität diskutieren.

Was gibt es da zu diskutieren?

Sklaverei ist legitim, schließlich gibt es Menschen, die zum Dienen geboren sind und solche, die zum Herrschen geboren sind.

Frauen sind bewiesenermaßen dümmer als Männer.

Nur Homosexualität sollte endlich nicht länger diskriminiert werden.

Wie, das finden Sie absurd?

Gut, Sie haben Recht.

Aber wieso finden Sie dann diese Realität nicht genauso absurd?

Die Sklaverei ist abgeschafft.

Frauen sind gleichberechtigt (außer in der katholischen Kirche, einigen evangelischen Freikirchen und im Islam).

Nur Schwule und Lesben werden unter Berufung auf die Bibel weiter verstoßen und verhöhnt. Das sei Gottes Wille, behaupten Christen und Christinnen.

gestern ging es zu fünft von frankfurt nach erlangen. der grund: das emergent forum. was ist das? es ist das forum der emerging church bewegung in deutschland (http://emergent-deutschland.de/).

gestern ging es um 8 uhr mit gebratenen nudeln bzw. reis. danach wurde es typisch emergent, es wurden beziehungen geknüpft und fragen gestellt. das ganze fand an unterschiedlichen tischen statt. ich war etwas müde, und konnte da nicht so viel für mich rausziehen, dafür war der abend richtig toll, mit neuen begegnungen und guten gesprächen.

übernachtet wurde im gemeinderaum auf isomatte. und nachdem das auto heut morgen umgeparkt werden musste (wir haben zum glück keinen strafzettel bekommen) wurde in einer kleinen bäckerei um die ecke gefrühstückt. der große kaffee für einen euro ist sehr zu empfehlen.

um kurz nach halb zehn ging es mit einer meditation und nem kreativen staffellauf weiter. grade eben werden 7 emergente projekte vorgestellt, unter anderem:

http://fairlangen.org/ http://www.klausabendbrot.de/ http://www.sam-sinsheim.de/ http://nuncafe.de/

Wer das forum online live verfolgen möchte, kann das tun unter http://emergent-deutschland.de/

bilder gibts hier http://www.flickr.com/photos/al_bright/sets/72157622766173557/

At the panel discussion on Personal KM, I heard a person remark how he uses his blog to remind him of what he knows — like an auxillary memory. This was an ‘aha’ moment for me. Way back, I created this blog to share my thoughts on what I am doing, but the notion of ‘perfection’ set in early on and kept me from using this blog fundamentally as a brain dump – for all the thoughts, responses and reactions to all the fantastic work going on out there in the world of knowledge sharing, collaboration, sensemaking and social networking.
So this post is a start in dislodging myself from being ‘poised to be perfect’ to really sharing what I am going through.
Three things that stood out for me from KMWorld: I must apologize if you were expecting detailed notes. I didn’t carry my netbook along, and didn’t use the work laptop I did lug around. Instead I went with a notebook and don’t really have much to report back in terms of notes.
My experience at the conference was in some ways disappointing. I am not sure if this is the case with most KM conferences [This was my first] but it’s hard to tell what proficiency level to expect from the audience. As a speaker on Day 2, I had no information from the organizers on what to expect from the audience. As part of the audience, I sensed the same confusion in most speakers — Are they addressing folks who’re at the ‘Is KM important?’ stage or are they addressing a group of practitioners and the conference was aimed to extend your thinking in specific ways? From experience, I think it was neither fully – but a bit of both. I also realized that I don’t do ‘There’s something for everybody’ approaches to a conference.
The other dissapointment is that I sorely missed David Gurteen! Most sessions were run in a horribly cold, lecture-type manner. The speaker came with huge decks that contained a lot of pictures and typically spoke for about 40 of the 45 minutes and then ran through a quick round of Q&A. Through each session, there wasn’t any space to have a conversation and build some relationships with fellow participants.

That said, here are a few things that I came away with from the conference:

Andrew McAfee was the keynote speaker on Day one. In his definition of Enterprise 2.0 [which appears to have become tighter since his first definition for the term] I loved the word ‘emergent’. He spoke about the idea of expertise in an organization being emergent and the value in diversity of scientific input. At this point, I wanted to bang my head against the table. I so get this but try applying it in an organization and it’s very, very hard to do. Enterprises have nearly perfected the art of replicating Pavlov’s experiment with our compensation approach. In such a situation, it’s simply absurd to ask leaders to build this culture of diverse, cross-pollinating network of collaborators. What results thus is a pursuit to locate the 1 – 5% of leaders who are willing to resist the lure of compensation and risk building relationships outside of their immediate team [read Turf]. The silver lining however is that it is not possible to perfect Pavlov’s experiment. The dog in an Enterprise is NOT an isolated being but a social one, who is tuned to the forces of the market and all our wonderful competitors who are vying for his talents. So yes, we know that expertise is emergent. We know that it takes time to acquire identity and reputation but it still doesn’t mean we’ll be any better in converting an ancillary connection into a strong tie / relationship.
Another term I picked up from Andrew Mcaffe’s talk was ’social signals’. In this world of Web 2.0, there is an illusion that relationships can be instant. All I need to do is follow you on Twitter, and have you follow me on Twitter and voila, we’re in a relationship. Not! Go out to Amazon and there are plenty of social signals that is solicited from you. Like / Dislike, leave a comment, Rate, Tag etc. Clearly we’re at a point when we can confidently say that content that doesn’t solicit some form of interaction from it’s consumer is irrelevant or dead. Wherever we have content, its the interactions around that piece of content that will be relevant to us. Even if it’s help or instructions – there’s probably someone out there building a video/content that can help your users in ways that you can’t.
A panel discussion on Personal KM was very useful. How do we teach someone to ‘manage’ what he/she knows? In school, many, many years ago, rote memory was THE tool for Personal KM. Multiplication tables – no problem, just learn them by heart. Spelling? Same thing. The human brain was asked to store as many things as possible and in ways that could trigger quick recollection. In college, I came across a quote from Eienstien that read something like ‘I don’t bother remembering anything that I can find in a book.’. Today, given the rapid mobility across geographies and dispersed families and distributed ‘global’ organizations, there are as many more tools that we need to employ to help us keep track of what we know AND who we know KNOW what we know or want to know more about. Eliot Masie talked about looking at your network and parsing it through a test to see how diverse it was. If everybody you’re connected to is into what you know, that’s not going to help you grow or extend your thinking much. However if you are able to build a network that is diverse and that encourages the cross-pollination of ideas, then you are perhaps better able to apply the know-how of your network to risking innovation.
So how do we develop PKM skills across an organization? Do we even know what those skills are?
This brings me to the last highlight of the event and that was Patrick Lambe’s talk on expertise. I missed out on the first fifteen minutes but that still didn’t take away from the value of this session. I have used the term ‘expertise’ very many times – - it’s a critical part of my vocabulary when I want to talk to people about collaboration. Yet, Lambe got me questioning what I meant by ‘expertise’. In the traditional learning organization, expertise is really related to skill. Our experts are folks who are have deep expertise in these skills and we have a huge skills framework to catalog all the different skills out there that are relevant to productivity. Each skill gets mapped across a few proficiency levels and each individual can apply himself to building his proficiency by taking specific actions [that instruction designers excelled at defining]. Well, this was all well and good in a classroom. Then came Masie and e-learning and we could now scale learning across large audiences and package it in sizes tuned to the individual. So much so that e-learning, Masie regrets is also lonely learning. Was this enough? Lambe brings a different viewpoint to understanding expertise. He qualifies expertise in six components: Role knowledge, Know-who, experience, memory, skill, technical and he shared with us a research project where he is gathering evidence from different organizations on how they address these components of expertise through programs in their organization. Memory incidentally is the least valued by organizations. What this said to me, is that we’re OK in compensating folks for what they do today, and then are totally happy to let them forget it — Perpetuate this cycle and we’re in this continous cycle of trial & error. The Knowledge Management function is key to organizational memory and yet how much of learning programs are targetted at the memory component? Know-who is another key component – - – The power of all the knowledge that resides in the network: Is there a way to know more about this? Rob Cross’ work on ONA is a start into identifying these network patterns and yet what’s missing is the ‘know what’.
Whether we’re addressing the challenges of personal km or that of organizational culture around collaboration and innovation, I think that the pursuit of knowledge or knowledge management is the wrong one. Instead we need to pursue relationships and understand how networks can be augmented to surface individual voices and focus conversations.
I’ll end with a quote that I will paraphrase here: We can not afford to take a retrospective view of learning in a world of emergence.

NOTE: You can find my presentation that I gave on Day 2 on ‘Building successful communities’ on my LinkedIN profile – slideshare application. On my way out of the conference, I had an elderly gentleman call me out and tell me that I did a really good job — and that felt good!

]]> http://markingtime4now.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/if-the-nazi-csis-had-cause-to-arrest-me/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:38:56 +0000 Mark Nielsen http://markingtime4now.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/if-the-nazi-csis-had-cause-to-arrest-me/

Say there were some future society or alternate universe in which compassion was a civil crime (“aiding and abetting an unevolved weakling”), and/or a heresy punishable by imprisonment. What if  believers in a turn-the-other-cheek God were excommunicated, even oppressed, by those whose God wears armor (as if He would need it… ha!).

Or what if a historian in a hundred years goes digging into the details of your life, to see if you lived by the biblical injunction from the prophet Micah: “to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Will that historian find any evidence against you? Or in your favor? Would Satan’s head CSI or Grand Inquisitor be able to present evidence to convict you in some upside-down court of law, a court that celebrates selfishness and hatred but condemns faith? What would that physical evidence be, that you were one of those “Jesus” people? Hopefully it’s something more substantial than some idiotic Thomas Kinkade painting on your living room wall…

Bearing witness against injustice, being as “shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16), has to cost us something, or it probably won’t work. Maybe that just action you are called to is nothing more than a firm commitment in your role on the PTA to establish a “books and supplies” fund for poor families in your community, the “least of these” as our Lord calls them. Maybe it’s a letter to your congressperson, or a decision to leave a church over a matter of conscience. Or maybe it’s some more dramatic choice to be shrewd yet innocent, like the French and German Resistance movements during World War II.

Not that one has to put one’s life on the line, or even act justly in some smaller way, in order to earn salvation. If faith is working the way it’s supposed to, we just do it, or more accurately we let God do these things through us. We listen and learn, then follow His lead.

In other words, what are the fruits of God’s Holy Spirit in your everyday life? When did you sign on the dotted line this year, to bear witness in a visible way to your own children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, that Jesus is still at work in your life and in the world?

I’m not here to accuse, because I’d have to accuse myself first. I’m just asking the question:

Are you hiding the Light under a bushel?

]]> http://mikeoles3.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/10-things-for-emergentmissional-united-methodists-to-be-thankful-for/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:50:50 +0000 mikeoles3 http://mikeoles3.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/10-things-for-emergentmissional-united-methodists-to-be-thankful-for/

1.  Thank you to John Wesley. We missionals/emergents like to stir things up a bit, raise  some hell, speak out boldly against injustice, reach neglected communities, and open the church doors in real ways to those who wouldn’t step foot in to a church in a million years.  I think the life and works of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, grants us that permission even if the established church frowns on or is disinterested in such  activities.

2.  Thank you to the early church. Despite the overwhelming violence and power of the Roman empire, these earlier followers of Christ  persisted and still show us 2,000 years later that love wins and that another way is possible.

3.  Thank You  to the prophetic church. Yeah, somewhere along the way (think Constantine but probably way before that as the church became more and more succesful) the church lost its way.  But the link between  mainstream religion and injustice is an age old problem ( the need for social propehtics like  Micah, Amos, Isiaiah in the first place).

Instead of liberation and community, the churches began to preach and practice and protect the status quo.   Whether it was St. Francis of Asissi, Dorothy Day, John Wesley, Dr. Martin Luther King, or countless others whose names history has forgotten, these communities figured out creative ways to be faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ, in spite of violent threats and raw military and economic power or just plain ole’ apathy.

4.  Thank You to EmergingUMC2 and beyond. Much thanks to the 30 or so United Methodists who gathered this November to talk about the possibilities of restoring missional methodism.  As a participant, it was inspiring to hear all the amazing things going on across the country as Methodists struggle to rethink church. Let’s hope this conversation keeps going.

5.  Thank You to the Emergent Conversation. I first started hearing about the emergent conversation a few years ago and it saved my faith or at least my participation in a church.

6. Thank You to no More George W. Bush in public office. Yeah, this is a cheap shot, but it is a little disconcerting that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both claimed to be United Methodists.  That presidency might say more about the failures of the United Methodist church than anything else.

7. Thank You to the GBOD worship website. If you ever find yourself needing help with a worship service, check out the General Board of Discipleship’s worship webpage. Consistently updated and always helpful.

8.  Thank You for some good Methodist blogs. Check this blog’s home page for them.

9.  Thank You to The Future. More and more, it looks like the future of the church  will be missional and emergent.  Here is Phyllis Tickle’s take on it.

10. Thank You to Jesus Christ.  Not in that cheezy I just won the super-bowl kid of way, but for not letting fear or the quest for prestige and power get in the way of God’s plan.

]]> http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/brannon-howse-warns-that-emergents-are-actually-communistic-atheists/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:07:08 +0000 donjobson http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/brannon-howse-warns-that-emergents-are-actually-communistic-atheists/



Brannon Howse using GOIP Tech and STRETCH Technology’s Hellescope discernmentalizes that Emergents are actually Atheistic Communists:

Emerging Trouble

 The pastors and authors of one of America’s fastest growing spiritual movements, the Emergent Church, sing the praises of socialism. As I’ll explain in more detail later, the Emergent Church champions the neo-Marxist call for a utopian society through spiritual evolution where good and evil merge to form a “better” third option. This idea derives from the belief system of philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and finds its contemporary manifestation in the “Third Way” movement of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. In the Third Way, capitalism, socialism, and communism merge to form a misanthropic combination of the three. This blending is now represented in the terms “the New World Order” and “the new enlightenment.”

 The Third Way promotes Communitarianism, a toxic blend of communism, socialism, atheism, and Cosmic Humanism. Communitarians believe in universal health care, government-subsidized housing and education, radical environmentalism, Fabian socialism, and the like.

An article on the website of the Democratic Leadership Council explains how Clinton and Blair have promoted Third Way thinking across the globe:

On Sunday, April 25, 1999, President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, “The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, “with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D’Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.[4]

Starting with Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labour party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Shroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold.

Not to be hoodwinked by the window dressing of Third Way advocates, however, Vaclav Klaus, prime minister of the Czech Republic, warns against the real future it offers: “The Third Way is the fastest route to the Third World.”[5] But that seems to be where communitarians want to take us.

Grave Influence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews that Rule America from the Grave

This is it, the one book you need to read if you want to understand the big picture, connect all the dots, and understand current times, and future events and trends that will be unfolding. This ground-breaking book by best-selling author Brannon Howse is the result of thousands of hours of research over many years and is must reading for every teenager and adult.

Brannon reveals how the worldviews of 21 dead people are still influencing every aspect of American life and vying for the hearts and minds of adults and students. Whether we are discussing, law, science, economics, history, family, social issues, education or religion, the people and worldviews seeking to further their agenda in these disciplines are almost always connected back to four major forces. Brannon reveals the connection between occultism/pagan spirituality, the apostate church, the educational establishment and government/corporations.

Through this book you will come to understand the oppositions worldview, heroes, goals, strategies, masking terms, networks and targets. Those who share the worldviews of these 21 enemies of our constitutional republic and Biblical worldview do not want their agenda and its consequences to be revealed to the American people. Above all, they do not want us to equip and train our children and grandchildren with a Biblical worldview by which to recognize, reject, and fight against their seductive and destructive lies. This book will equip you to do just that as Brannon gives specific and pro-active responses you can take to make this the finest hour for the American church.

Here is the list of twenty-one for which Brannon has dug up worldview facts you must know and prepare to oppose:
 
Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Margaret Sanger, William James, Alice Bailey, Helen Schuman, Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Benjamin Bloom, B.F. Skinner, The Frankfurt School, Soren Kierkegaard, Julius Wellhausen, Christopher Columbus Langdell, Betty Friedan and Roger Baldwin

Topics covered include:

Corporate fascism, sustainable development, the Third Way, global governance, dialectic process, the Delphi technique, the Cloward-Piven Strategy and deliberate chaos, community organizing, Fabian socialism, the federal reserve and a fiat currency, America’s decline is Europe’s gain, cultural Marxism, government mandated youth service, legal positivism, postmodernism, soft-despotism, higher-criticism, pagan spirituality, feminism, welfare-state capitalism, the false-dominate church, the Emergent Church, the spiritual battle for America, the United Nations and occultism, unmasking the one-world religion, the deconstructionists in the culture and in the church, psychological labeling of dissenters, behavior modification, a planned economy, the assault on parental authority, the two tracks to globalism, Keynesian economics, collectivism, similarities between America and Nazi Germany, national leaders are a reflection of the people, social justice, why the culture war is lost if the church goes weak, is God judging America?, When and why does God judge a nation?, the environmentalist/globalist connection, cultural revolution/sexual revolution, the right to die becomes the duty to die, the true purpose of the law, why the State wants the children, are we all God’s children? And much, much more.

Click here to order now:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/store/product.php?ProductID=1044



We agree that Emergents are Absolutely evil. Just look at how a typical Emergent looks:



This is why ye must avoid those evil Emergent heretics: Iggy, Tripp Fuller, The Groundworks, Mike Morrell and TheoPoet.

]]> http://madhatta.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/after-consciousness-reframed-x-conference-biofeedback-and-ubiquitous-anthropology/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:59:05 +0000 madhatta http://madhatta.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/after-consciousness-reframed-x-conference-biofeedback-and-ubiquitous-anthropology/

This year’s Consciousness Reframed conference has just finished, and we just returned home for a little while.
A sunny Munich hosted the tenth edition of the Planetary Collegium’s annual conference themed “Experiencing Design, Behaving Media”.

We presented two FakePress projects: Conference Biofeedback and Ubiquitous Anthropology.

Conference Biofeedback @ Consciousness Reframed

The two projects form a continuous line of thought: the emergence of narratives built on interstitial spaces built through technologies on-between bodies, architectures, objects, places. Build new spaces for expression and communication that are overlayed on ordinary reality.

Conference Biofeedback allowes you to acquire new sensibilities directed to the feelings of the people you are talking to. While the USB device that we produced for the conference was somewhat cumbersome (I just finished soldering it at 5am in the morning before leaving for Munich) it provided quite an interesting experience: while i made the presentation, people interacted with the web interface and actually gave me quite a few shocks.

While I always question myself about the interestingness of the things I talk about, I guess the availability of this novelty contributed quite a bit to the great deal of clicking-and-shocking-the-lecturer that was going on among the people in the audience.

The project was presented as a “war on boring conferences” but people were truly happy about the implicit possibilites: we discussed about these devices as low information publishing tools that could interact with our common practices by providing externalized sensibilities; and also about the possibilities to break communication codes and create spaces-in-between that can be used for autonomous, self-determined self-expression, beyound authority, control and censorship.

These techno-practices have uses that can provide useful for creativity, commerce, art, information, communication and education. But, most of all, they are an explicit expression of the ways in which contemporary sensibilities might change, they show possible directions towards changes in attitude, in the concepts of public and private spaces, in the adoption of new forms of identity and social collaboration, new politics, new relationships with the environment and with people.

And new expression of the Ethnographic Self are the focus of Ubiquitous Anthropology: multi author, location based narratives that allow to go beyond classic anthropological researches, often expression of single points of view provided by anthropologists and researchers, and to create spaces for the expressions of all the actors involved. Look at the world from the point of view of other people, accepting and valuing different perspectives and individualities. Become multiple by “wearing” the voice of the Other. A perceptive jukebox through which discourses, points of view and sensibilities can truly evolve.

Here is a video of the presentation.

(sorry, it’s the wrong way…. please turn your monitor on the side.. I promise I will never use my iPhone on the side ever again   )

The Consciousness Reframed conference was truly worthwhile: lots of friends presenting truly interesting projects and researches. I do advise you to check out the presentation list and the materials that will be published shortly at the conference’s website.

An interesting side note: we just published the book telling the story of Angel_F’s first year of life. We met Derrick de Kerckhove in Munich and we gave it to him as a present. Here’s a picture below

Derrick de Kerckhove and Angel_F

But that’s another story, and we’ll tell you all about it as soon as we get back from AHAcktitude. Our little Angel_F will be there as well, so you might as well drop by if you like.

Stay tuned.

]]> http://cdmr.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/schimbarea-climei-un-pas-mic-pentru-omenire-un-pas-mare-pentru-marketingul-social/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:45:33 +0000 Mihai Pintilie http://cdmr.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/schimbarea-climei-un-pas-mic-pentru-omenire-un-pas-mare-pentru-marketingul-social/

De curand Lafarge – uriasul din domeniul constructiilor si WWF – World Wildlife Fund – una dintre cele mai mari organiziatii non-guvernamentale de protectie a mediului, au reinnoit parteneriatul dintre cele doua pentru inca patru ani. Parteneriatul ce dateaza tocmai din anul 2000 are ca scop colaborarea intre organizatii pentru minimizarea efectelor actiunilor Lafarge asupra mediului in locatiile in care activeaza in toate colturile lumii, parteneriatul fiind unul global.

De altfel Lafarge a fost primul jucator industrial ce a devenit partener al WWF, fiind si acum cel mai mare partener si primind ca urmare a rezultatelor obtinute certificatul “WWF Conservation Partner”. Acest certificat utilizat de Lafarge pe scara larga, de la scrisori pana la website, de la comunicate de presa pana la bilantul anual reprezinta si o dovada de marketing social din partea Lafarge, fapt ce-i atrage o perceptie pozitiva din partea clientilor, partenerilor si nu numai.

CEO-ul Lafarge spunea la semnarea prelungirii parteneriatului ca “din anul 2000 Lafarge a facut o multime de pasi in vederea imbunatatirii impactului asupra mediului, o multime de alti pasi mai sunt insa de facut.. un astfel de parteneriat e o ocazie fantastica de a confrunta viziunea unui mamut industrial cu cea a unei ONG“.

Zonele in care colaborarea este activa de ambele parti sunt tarile cu economii emergente (Brazilia, China, India) in care investitiile Lafarge sunt foarte mari datorita cererii in crestere si conjuncturii economice, de asemenea domeniile cheie sunt reducerea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon – se stie ca acestea sunt mari in cadrul activitatilor procesatorilor de ciment, reducerea poluarii permanente cu diverse materiale rezultate din activitatea de productie, reducerea consumului de apa, reabilitarea carierelor de extractie.. Piatra de temelie a constituit-o definirea si implementarea unor instrumente de masurare si monitorizare a efectelor activitatilor Lafarge asupra mediului, de aici pornind masurile de control si imbunatatire a operatiunilor.

Interesant este faptul ca dupa semnarea parteneriatului dintre cele doua parti, mai multi jucatori industriali si-au aratat interesul si disponibilitatea de a colabora cu WWF, vazand in ea nu doar un instrument de marketing ci si unul de crestere a eficientei sau o provocare in realizarea unei imbunatatiri a eficientei activitatilor proprii.

]]> http://museumdesignlab.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/esquires-augmented-reality/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:31:07 +0000 eriyamage http://museumdesignlab.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/esquires-augmented-reality/

This month was Esquire Magazine’s Augmented Reality Issue. On the cover and throughout the magazine, picture codes known as Augmented Reality software were placed next to the featured articles. For example, Robert Downey Jr. had a code on the cover that he was selling. A male supermodel had a code next to the clothes he was wearing. Readers simply download AR Software to their computers and hold up the AR code to their webcam. Once the webcam registers the code, a video of Robert Downey Jr. in his interview pops up. A video of the Model modeling clothes pops up. These are not short clips. They run for a good three – five minutes. High –tech animations and graphics are of course included and by rotating the magazine at different angles, i.e. facing north instead of south, a different video pops up to talk to, entertain, and educate the reader.

The ease at which Esquire introduced Augmented Reality to the public struck me as something that Museums; particularly Natural History Museums can use to make their visitors more engaged. If they were to place these codes next to their still objects suck as earthen vases, traditional wedding costumes, or even primeval weapons, visitors can beep the codes located next to the objects and immediately watch a video of how they were used. For example, the Natural History Museum in NYC has a traditional Chinese Wedding Costume for a bride along with the Sedan Chair that she sits in. As accurate as those two items are, if I weren’t from Chinese heritage, I wouldn’t know the tradition and importance of the logic behind how the bride gets brought into the carriage. If a video can pop up immediately after scanning the adjacent AR code, visitors can be brought back to ancient China and see that the veiled bride has to be piggy-backed over a brazier on to the carriage by an older woman known as the matron of honor, that the bride was always sheltered with a red parasol and kerchief, and that the door of the Sedan Chair was always kicked open to chase away bad spirits that may have latched on the to bride before.

As these Augmented Reality codes can be beeped on any digital device, the Museum won’t have to worry about introducing a vast amount of technology into their actual exhibits. People can simply view these on their phones. Augmented Reality Codes and software can enhance the experience of viewing still objects!

Kelly Lo

]]> http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/mike-morrells-romanist-leanings/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:29:58 +0000 donjobson http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/mike-morrells-romanist-leanings/



If ye haven’t read my first post exposing Mike do so or else. The second thing that concerns us about Mike Morrell’s post is Mike’s Romanist leanings. Ken Silva is quoted as saying:

What utter and complete blasphemy. May the Lord reveal Himself to you and open your eyes to the idol you have created and now worship. May He remove the veil of ignorance that you blissfully revel in but that holds your soul in condemnation.

Editors’ Note: We of God’s Truly Chosen Elect don’t have idols you know.

Indeed we of the Online Discernmentalist Mafia and the GOIP are saying an Imprecatory Prayer against Mike’s evilness. What is so evil about Mike you may ask besides saying that God changes—why he supports Contemplative Spirituality which is nothing more than Romanism repackaged—the deformation of  Protestant Christianity if you will. Anyways, here is an incriminating quote from Mike Morrell’s post:

Part of the ‘inner reflex’ is Centering Prayer is letting go. For 20 minutes twice a day, it’s a continuous letting go of thoughts and emotions that well up inside – kind of like a fisherman catching fish but not to eat – just for fun. He’s sitting in a boat (the mind) and his pole rests in the water (the field of consciousness). Little fish (thoughts, ideas, emotions) come up and nibble on the line (ordinary awareness) – the fisherman doesn’t shoot the fish with a revolver or cut the line. Instead, he pulls the little fish up, but doesn’t keep them in the boat – it’s catch & release.

Catch and release, catch and release, gently, graciously – because you recognize that even the lake is situated in a much larger ecosystem (God). You can let go because the earth is abundant; you will be fed. Centering Prayer is a journey of trust in God, even on the unconscious level, where all kind of mis-trustful thoughts bubble up to the surface. The life centered in surrender to & trust in God is a life of profound peace and productivity – and our Scriptures attest, in a myriad of ways, that such trust (faith) ‘pleases God.’ But when we’re faced with the disturbing truths that Brueggemann elucidates – God’s irascibility for instance – what do we do?

There are two ways to do handle this. One is the way of definitive, forceful – almost violent – denial that there is (or has ever been) anything troubling in God’s character or actions. It’s the route of trusting God via suppression.

But there is another route – more painful, more adult, more complex – but I think it can still end in deeply-rooted, childlike trust. It’s a path that I’ve learned from many guides over the years, including Bruggie Baby (sorry for the familiarity, but it’s really hard typing his name over and over again), Meister Eckhart, the Jewish scholar Richard Elliot Friedman in The Hidden Face of God, Jack Miles in his Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God, ‘deeper life’ missionary and teacher Norman Grubb, and the process theologians that Tripp Fuller is getting me to read (like his professor Philip Clayton of Transforming Theology) or listen to & he and Chad Crawford’s uber-awesome podcast Homebrewed Christianity – all refined in the daily, simple crucible (quite actually) of centering prayer as taught by Contemplative Outreach and particularly Cynthia Bourgeault. (Did you read that paragraph, Ken Silva? It was practically tailor-written for you, LOL. If you don’t write about me, Discernmentalist Mafia will!)

My fellow colleague in discernmentalizations Dr. Truthslayer has this to add about Mike’s Emergent Romanism:     

ODMafia went on the prowl….we sent our research robot monkeys behind the scenes to find the authentic Emergent Church (EC). …What did we find?….Among other  things that have been discovered (as suggested in previous posts)….we spotted couches, candles and sometimes left-over coffee cups (often left in the recycled bin which suggests that they are Earth worshipers). Surely this has new age undertones.

Anyways, we all know with Absolute Certainty that candles in church=Romanism. And that’s Mike Morrell, a Romanist—we have Absolute Proof:



Mike Morrell caught sinning by drinking alcohol and with the Pope at that.



Mike Morrell exposed as a Romanist/Papist pope and idol worshipping heretic.

]]> http://treehousemonastic.com/2009/11/23/the-justice-project/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:02:28 +0000 Steven Burleson http://treehousemonastic.com/2009/11/23/the-justice-project/

 

“The Justice Project” edited by Brian McLaren, Elisa Padilla, and Ashley Bunting Seeber is one of the best books I’ve read this year and definitely one of the best books on justice that I’ve ever read. Over the past few years it seems there has been a resurgence of “Justice-talk.” People are getting excited again about what it means to love one’s neighbor and how to act accordingly, especially in the face of injustice. Reading this collaboration of concise articles was an eye-opening experience as each author penned a different, yet “cohesive-to-the-whole” picture of what justice might look like in our world today if we would only get creative. “The Justice Project,” as an introduction to justice issues, may very well be “the voice of one many crying out in the wilderness”: “Justice is here. Join us.”

]]> http://markingtime4now.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/falling-behind-a-soul-searchers-confession/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:40 +0000 Mark Nielsen http://markingtime4now.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/falling-behind-a-soul-searchers-confession/

Those who know me, or have followed the Marking Time blog , are most likely aware I’ve been posting very few entries here since the summer of ‘09 (and even longer in the case of  a simple desire , the other blog I help out with occasionally). That’s not an altogether bad thing, but I thought a note here to explain myself would be in order right about now.

I’ve still been writing, but much of the material has been of a deeply personal nature. I’ve continued to generate some interesting poems, or at least first drafts of some good stuff. But another poet friend recently told me that poems published on the web have even less chance of getting into print or being “sold” than poetry usually has. (In other words, one in ten thousand, as opposed to the usual one in a thousand…)

I’ve also been doing plenty of journaling, but that also is of a type that needs to stay private. It’s material that may lead to public material, but it’s pretty raw and needy right about now. Wrote a couple of sermons in my capacity on the lay preaching team at church, and also collaborated on a unique performance art piece for the St. Francis/Men and Nature event sponsored by Illinois MALEs and the CAC in October (see blogroll links on the right at Marking Time).

My dream journal in particular will probably yield a few short stories, and has been pretty wild so far. It’s the first time I’ve ever tried this faithfully, and I recommend it, to artists and non-artists alike. When we give our souls and our subconscious permission to speak, what they have to say can be pretty radical. And the transformation of dreams into something more fully understood, and rational, and useful, takes time. So putting them in print increases our opportunity to chew on that material for a few days, a few months, or longer. If  that translation or interpretation even needs to happen, which in some cases it does not. Dreams do their work on us and change us in ways we may not ever fully comprehend.

So this goes out to you to say I’m still here. Still okay. Glad to get an email, comment or phone call by any means necessary. I still read a few other blogs each week. And I’ll keep dropping little items into Marking Time as I’m able. Look for a new poem tomorrow, in fact… despite what I said above. A guy’s gotta blow off a little steam now and then, after all, and my blogged poems have gotten more positive responses over the years than any of my essays or columns. But my higher priority these days is to get a decent day job. And I gotta get my head together (What? Again? Yes… again.) before I give a whole lot of time to blogging, volunteering, or the other ways I’ve spent so much time the past few years. I get a lot out of those activities, of course. But I need to find new ways to give back to the world, ways that don’t keep me emotionally drained and financially strapped. And I need to get over loving the sound of my own voice far too much…

So for now, just keep me in your prayers. I’m doing the same for you.

]]> http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-emergent-manifesto-a-quick-review/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:00:55 +0000 Reformed Reader http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-emergent-manifesto-a-quick-review/
• 

I finally finished this: An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (ed. by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones).  As you may know from earlier posts, I’m about as Emergent as a dead stick.  At the same time, the “movement” fascinates me, and is something I as a pastor want to know something about.  Also, to be sure, the movement makes some good points.  I’ll acknowledge that despite my deep disagreement with much of the theology and piety of the Emergent movement, some things I read by them are helpful.  But instead of discussing Emergent (smarter guys have done it already quite well), I’ll give a few comments on the aforementioned book.

The book has five parts:  1) A People of Hope,  2) Communities of Hope, 3) A Hopeful Faith, 4) A Hopeful Way Forward, and 5) Hopeful Activism.  In each section, around 5 or 6 Emergent type leaders write on differing topics, from jail church to social justice to Karl Barth to sexual ethics to transforming culture.  The book is one you certainly want to get if you need a small and very easy to read window into the Emergent movement. 

On thing I appreciated about the book was that the authors understand our “day” is different from the “day” of 50 or 100 years ago.  I realize some in “conservative” churches are entrenched in the past, using old grammar, language, illustrations, totally unwilling to step into this century.  Again, despite my theological disagreement with how they handle our new “day,” I enjoyed some aspects of how they described it. 

I also enjoyed the chapter on the church in the jail (by Thomas Olson) as well as the chapters on Karl Barth (by Chris Eerdman) and humble theology (by Dan Kimball).  I’m not convinced by Eerdman as he compared Barth’s Church Dogmatics with Brian McLaren’s ”broad ecclesiology” – though I see some truths in the statement, that in some ways Barth and McLaren are similar (p.241).  Kimball’s chapter was so doctrinal that it almost doesn’t fit in the book!  Some authors in the book were saying quite negative things about fundamental theological beliefs, while Kimball advocated the need to hold on to fundamental beliefs (p. 215).  I’d say things a bit differently than Kimball, but the chapter does stick out for me.

I also was quite frustrated with certain aspects of the book.  First, the buzzwords drove me nuts.  How many times can you say “explore” and  ”post-colonial” and “adventure” and “authentic” and “community” and “generative” and “missional” and “conversation” in a single book?  I suppose the buzzwords might have to do with the internet aspect of the Emerging churches.  Buzzwords and internet go hand in hand.

Some aspects of the book were pretty offensive for me.  Though the words “hope” and “future” were all over the place, many of the authors were totally stomping on the historic or “old-school” church.  I was offended when they criticized “modern” churches for being so exclusive and disruptive to families.  For example, on page 53, Carla Barnhill critiques modern churches: In many churches, “There is little help for parents who struggle with a difficult child. There is little room for imperfect families.”  She goes on to say how Emerging churches are much more family-friendly than traditional churches because they are so much more inclusive and diverse than anything else.  This is pretty offensive, not just incorrect.  In the “old-school” churches I’m in, and grew up in, I have seen a group of mothers take turns helping a troubled family for weeks on end – food, cash, and prayers.  A month ago, after church, I saw an 82-year-old woman teaching some 13-year-old girls how to do needle work for their school project.   I’m not sure how you could improve on that kind of help and inclusiveness - this stuff just happens without all the blog buzzwords and talk.

The book also has an underlying theme: white, middle-class Americans (especially males) are to blame for most of the problems in Christianity.  It is my fault the Enlightenment happened, it is my fault that the church is patriarchal, it is my fault that there is racism, it is my fault that churches are fragmenting.  There may be glimmers of truth to some of those statements, and I’m far from perfect, but all those implicit accusations soon became offensive to me.  The only solution to the problems I’ve caused, the book implies, is to become Emergent, then my white-maleness will somehow be erased.  I’m not sure what to do with this undercurrent of the book!

In summary, there were some helpful things in the book and I’m glad I own it.  Some chapters made me want to put it in the compost pile to see if the ink really is biodegradable; other chapters left me pondering a few things.   I could note a few more things; this was just a very short review.  Maybe some other day I’ll post a tad more about it.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

]]> http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/where-ive-been-online-post-facebook-and-why/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:06:07 +0000 zoecarnate http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/where-ive-been-online-post-facebook-and-why/

Soo…9 days without Facebook. What have I been doing with myself? Mowing the lawn, taking long walks outside, working on projects for work and school; I’ve also been revisiting the various social networks and micro-networks I’ve joined over the last several years…and I’ve joined a coupla more. Presented here, for my benefit and yours, are the places I’m connected to online – and why I’m on a particular network. This doesn’t count email discussion groups I’m part of; I suppose that’d be a whole ‘nother post!

General/Meta

Twitter – @zoecarnate

FriendFeed – FriendFeed is awesome; let’s hope Facebook buying them doesn’t screw it up.

LinkedIn – my business, my biz-nass.

LibraryThing – my library, cataloged. A super-fun social network for book geeks.

Myspace – because sometimes I’m nostalgic for 2003.

Plaxo – does anyone remember what Plaxo is for?

YouTube – my vids, vids, vids.

Futurist

ShapingTomorrow – a large global community; primarily devoted to environmental scanning and trend analysis

The New Futurists – a younger crop of futurists, centered primarily in the northeast United States.

Faith

TransFORM – there’s more than meets the eye here.

Christiarchy! – Christian anarchists and Anabaptists (is there a difference?)

Christian Mysticism & Contemplative Spirituality – what it says. Contemplate that.

Missional Tribe – this one had a strong start but I think WordPress infrastructure, while great for blogs, isn’t great for supporting social networks.

Recovering Evangelical – hee-hee.

Metro Atlanta Emergent Cohort – my once and future cohort.

The Hyphenateds:

Anglimergent – I’m not Episcopalian, but I’m inspired by ‘em…especially St Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco.

Baptimergent – I’m not Baptist, but I used to be! And I’m inspired by New Community Church in Raleigh.

Cathlimergent – A brand new network started by my friend John Sylvest of ChristianNonduality

Emerging Leaders Network – aka Luthermergent. I’m not Lutheran, but…you see where this is going? Mad props to House For All in Denver.

The Common Root – formerly Submergent; an awesome group of Anabaptist-minded peeps.

QuakerQuaker – aka Convergent Friends.

House Church Homies

Simple Church

Organic Church Today

Healing Communities

Bleeding-Edge Creatives

Love Is Concrete – you can actually draw stuff in this network.

Wisefire – a great group of people.

iEvolve: Global Practice Community – Integral peeps.

]]> http://josiahmeyer.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/from-cool-young-emergent-intellectual-to-old-fashioned-boring-old-conservative/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:10:43 +0000 Josiah http://josiahmeyer.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/from-cool-young-emergent-intellectual-to-old-fashioned-boring-old-conservative/

(FYI: Thanks to some constructive criticism, I have made some slight modifications to this post since yesterday.)

Those of you who read this blog probably know what “emergent” means – basically, it is a form of Christianity which is custom-made to the generation now aged 20-30. There is a knee-jerk reaction against the protectionism of the 70’s, the perfectionism of the 80’s and the big-shiny-shallow churches of the 90’s. Hallmarks of Emergentism are obsession with big questions (not answering them, just chewing on them), downplaying or outright rejecting hell, the importance of the Bible, the exclusivity of Christianity, the horror of abortion and the perversion of homosexuality. Ambivalence on these topics allows the Emergent movement to be very “laid back” about their faith, and spend more time being “culturally relevant” than offending their society with the cold hard offense of the Gospel. Emergent folks also are sick of “the institutional church” and either want to start a new church in their own image or just leave and fly solo. Emergent people are very interested in compassion (some actually do something about it…some only pat themselves on the back for THINKING about doing something about it), but generally Emergent folks aren’t all that interested in evangelism, except to fellow disgusted Christians.

(Note: This is an extreme, slightly biased view of “Emergent”! There are people who use the word “Emergent” simply to refer to traditional Christianity with a modern flavour…there are also people who call themselves emergent who don’t really fit the bill at all. I am not talking about everything under the Emergent umbrella, just those who fit the description above)

For a while I was calling myself emergent: then I stopped, but others still labeled me as such. Now, right at this moment, I feel like just absolutely rejecting all things emergent and pushing just as hard as I can into the old, “1950’s,” Bible-thumping, perfect-family, conservative, insitutional-church oriented, close-minded “steroe-typical-Christian” mould which I have been reacting against.

Before explaining my reaction, maybe I should explain my journey (there’s a very Emergent thing to do! lol…)

My main reasons for becoming Emergent were reactionary. Anne Jisca had experienced a lot of pain growing up (and especially leaving) a home which was very close-knit and probably a little on the legalistic side. Because of her tendency towards extremes and her desire to please authorities, she took the legalism of her family much more seriously than the others – thus, when she began to question and ultimately to reject some of the rules she grew up with it made the “leaving-the-nest” tensions much more acute than normal.

Since I grew up with the Bible and church as my emotional happy-place, there was a conflict in our early marriage. When Anne Jisca saw me reading a Bible, or doing some other overtly “religious” activity, the fresh wounds from her past were opened, and she reacted negatively. I didn’t want to fit the mould of a super-religious, domineering, perfectionistic family-head, and so I backed off of that stuff. Also, I began to see that some of my religious expression was motivated by an insecure desire to protect myself – I started becoming suspicious of all things overtly spiritual. Finally, we had some negative experiences with the church, which made us want to retreat into more secular occupations.

After all that, out popped a very stereo-typically emergent couple. We dropped Sunday-school and other church involvements and only showed up for Sunday-mornings. For a while we even thought about dropping that. We read a lot of books and resources by Emergent authors, watched a lot of movies, and hung out with more Emergent friends – although we still kept contact with our “institutional-church” friends. We began questioning the typical Emergent questions (mentioned above,) and wondering how to make our faith more “relevant” for evangelism to our generation – as well as reaching people like us who had been “burnt” by the institutional church.

Okay, all that is background: this post is me saying – and saying emphatically – “I AM DONE!!” I am not emergent anymore!! I quit. I resign. I am burning (metaphorically speaking) all of my Emergent books, I am diving back into “the institutional church,” I am (slowly) developing convictions about the tough questions of life, and most of all, I am taking the reigns of our family, to lead us into being a solidly Christian home.

There are a lot of things which have been feeding into this. God has been leading me to a lot of Reformed resources which – as I learned recently – is the stronghold of all things anti-Emergent. These scholars and talkers have been picking away at the arrogance, woundedness, reactionism and independent spirit behind my Emergentism. (Note: I am putting a finger here on MY immaturity – others have their own motivations) Also, I have gone back into my church, and (much to my surprise!) have found that the leadership is NOT threatened by change. They are able to keep step with me in my Emergent literature. They aren’t insecure about their faith or “the church,” and (here’s the real shockeer!) they are just as frustrated with outdated formalisms where they are present, and are actively seeking new ways of expressing their faith through the church. I felt like leaving the church because I wanted it to change: now I am realizing that it is just people like me whom the Church leadership is seeking IN ORDER to change the church!

I guess these things have all been pushing me back from my Emergentism, but what really got me was a visit with some really “on the edge” Christians. I suppose that a year ago we would have left that visit saying, “Wow, isn’t it cool that a Christian is free enough to do that…and there were no awkward ‘God moments’ in what we talked about…” or some such thing. Now…? There is something different now. Aside from a difference in our spirit, we also have a child. A very, very impressionable child. As I sat watching a video containing swears, inuendo’s and Godlessness, then sang songs about breakup, immorality and blasphemy while alcohol flowed freely, and prayers and God-talk were conspicuously absent…I couldn’t help but ask, “Do I REALLY want my child to be a part of this sort of atmosphere?” It was more than the things done, however: I recognize that there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation, or enjoying secular entertainment. However, in this case these externals seemed to be a symptom of something deeper. There was a spirit about that house – something in the air. I didn’t feel comfortable. There was a decisive moment while my family and I were lying in bed. We were talking about how the evening made us spiritually uncomfortable and dark. Although it was several hours past his bed-time, Korban was restless between us. I prayed something to the effect of: “Lord, this is not a house of peace. This is not a place where you are Lord. But in this room we declare that you are Lord. We pray that you would pitch a tent of peace over us as we sleep, and that your presence would be here.” Before I was half-way done that short prayer, our restless son cuddled up and was instantly asleep. Both Anne Jisca and I also felt a burden lifting and slept deeply and dreemlessly all night.

I mentioned above that Anne Jisca had some things to work through from her family. We have tended in the past to be very ungracious in our perception of her family because of this: however, recently I have been thinking, “What is worse? A family which raises strong, solid, Godly children but has a hard time letting go, or a family which raises questioning, authority-despising, godless kids who are tempted by all sorts of vices, freely available in their home?” I mean really – what sorts of kids are these emergent folks going to raise? Kids imitate what they see, and kids take it to the next level. Anne Jisca has had things to work through, and yet Anne Jisca is SOLID! Her parents did an AWESOME job raising her. I am very, very glad that my in-laws were the farthest thing from Emergent.

Another event sticks out in my mind: we had my longtime mentor/pastor over (Ivan Ramer) to pray for/dedicate our new house. He was talking to us about a Christian home with a Bible in his hands when Korban walked up to him in his typically intrusive, curious 19-month-old manner. There was just something about the way that Ivan turned to him and opened the Bible for him and said, “This is a Bible! Isn’t the Bible wonderful? You love the Bible, don’t you? Yes, of course you do!” that at first struck me as strange, bordering on offensive (isn’t that mind-control?) but almost instantly I realized was extremely good (yes, we control minds…that is what education is all about!). I don’t want to be a father who implicitly says, “Korban, God is not important. After all, we don’t open the Bible, go to church, or talk about God – except to complain about how badly His people are making a mess of things.” Rather, I want God to be the centre of our lives – explicitly and unappologetically. I want to be one of those families that has regular times of meaningful prayer, family devotions, and who are often in church. I want my children to grow up in a bubble of Christian friends. I want my children to grow up with a deep, unquestioning belief in a God who is the source of all good things, the one in whom alone happiness is to be found, and in whose service their lives will find meaning.

This is what I want for my kids, this is what I want for me – I want to be a conservative, unappologetically religious, family-oriented man.

I can’t be this and also be Emergent. But that’s okay. Emergent is a phase, a transition period. For some, it is the time-out box where they sit on the bleachers, lick their wounds, catch their breath and go through a season where they spend more time critiquing those actually playing than playing themselves. For these people, they will eventually grow out of emergentism, to slide out onto the ice themselves and get involved once again. For others, Emergent is the locker-room, where the gear and clothing of Christianity are steadily and systematically peeled away and exchanged for the “street-clothes” of relevance and agnosticism before silently slipping off into the night.

Nobody stays Emergent forever.

I have no regrets. For us, Emergent was a good stop – THE stop, the place where God wanted us – along the path of life. There are things I hope to always take with me from there: I hope always to be concerned with global compassion initiatives, with environmentalism and with sanctified technology. However, we are done now. We are not Emergent anymore.

Now, a major question on my mind is, “How do I lead my family in spiritual matters?” Any ideas anyone?

]]> http://truthinator.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/comparison-rick-warren-vs-truth/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:16:26 +0000 truthinator http://truthinator.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/comparison-rick-warren-vs-truth/
 Deception Driven Church? You decide…
 
Stuart L. Brogden compiled this comparison between what Relevant Rick teaches in Purpose Driven Church and what the Bible teaches.

All the work of all men contains error.  That I perceive error in Rick Warren’s work is not note worthy.  But the repeated patterns of false teaching over 20 or more years and 25 million or so books combine for something to take notice of.  This book proclaims an Armenian, man-centered view of the world and its Creator, claiming all the while to be a Biblically sound God-centered work.  I think it is actually Biblically bankrupt, gilded with the false gospel of pragmatism.  As subtle and dangerous as the serpent in the garden, Warren calls us to believe a lie.

Curious – Many people have criticized Rick Warren by calling him a disciple or associate of Robert Schuller.  Warren has denied in this in myriad letters and articles, wanting to put distance between himself and the father of “possibility thinking”.  So why does Warren include Schuller’s effusive endorsement of this book (on the third page of the endorsements in the front of the book)?  And why does so much of Warren’s instruction sound so much like Schuller (see quotes at the end of this review)?

“The Purpose Driven Church” (PDC) is a humanistic, psychological view of how to handle a church, sprinkled with scripture in whichever translation or version can most easily be used to allegedly support Warren’s claims.  Whereas “The Purpose Driven Life” started out with a truth and spent itself in contradiction, so does PDC – claiming rightfully (page 14) “Only God makes the church grow” – and spending nearly 400 pages telling man how to manipulate people into something that only looks like church growth.

The foreward is a sugary sweet, sappy tribute from a once credible W.A. Criswell.  In his opening statement, Criswell declares that “God could not have a given me a more beloved and effective ‘son in the ministry’ than Rick Warren.”  You know a man is wrong when he limits God or assigns human characteristics to Him.  Criswell claims Saddleback “has grown without compromising the mission or the doctrine of a New Testament church.”  (Italics in the original.)  We shall see.  Criswell parrots the Schuller/Warren principal – “If churches are to be successful in evangelizing our society, which is becoming more pagan by the day, they must learn to think like an unbeliever.”  (Sic)  Right there, Criswell shows that he has lost sight of the New Testament church.

In what appears to be the introduction, Warren tells us the church must “look for the spiritual waves” of church growth, saying “because our churches haven’t been taught the needed skills, we are missing the spiritual waves that could bring revival, health, and explosive growth to our churches.”  Evidently, Warren’s Bible is not adequate instruction to the church or its members on the topic of spiritual outreach and discipleship.  He shows us right off that he is focused on “growth”.  And in this introduction, as well as throughout the book, Warren pays lip service to God while heralding and teaching humanistic methods.

It appears, even in the introduction, that Warren has slipped into an Armenian worldview, saying churches need to ask, “What barriers are blocking the waves God wants to send our way?”  (pages 15 & 16)  Poor, God Almighty – needs the church to move barriers out of the way.  Warren tells us (page 17) “the key issue for churches in the twenty-first century will be church health, not church growth.”  He then goes on to tell us, same page, that he’s “been a student of growing churches” for over twenty years. 

On page 18, Warren rightly lauds the Bible, and then declares, “My greatest source of learning, however has been watching what God has done in the church I pastor.”  This pragmatic view – study men and how to motivate them – pervades this whole book, and everything of Warren that I’ve read.

In Part One, page 26 & 27, Warren reciprocates Criswell’s sappy sweet foreword, quoting a Criswell prayer/prophecy of church growth for Warren, convinced that God had called him to pastor a church – sounding much like a mutual admiration society.  Warren admonishes us (page 27) to not “copy things we did without considering the context”, but to look at the “transferable principles”.  We will see what these “transferable principles” are shortly. 

Still on page 27, Warren states, “Very little of Saddleback’s ministry was preplanned.”  Remember this claim.  He then devotes the balance of chapter 1 describing all the planning that went into the “planting” of Saddleback.  His research led Warren to conclude that the pastor is the key figure in the health and growth of the church, describing the pastor as the “daddy” of the church!  Any church that has this view of its pastor has already failed. 

In spite of telling us that only God grows the church, Warren’s research drew him to the fastest growing population center in the country, a fact that “grabbed me by the throat and made my heart start racing.”  Lots of people moving into an area typified by upper middle class Americans certainly set a solid stage for numerical growth – a very pragmatic view. 

On page 38, Warren recommends a list of preachers he heard on the radio.  While several on Warren’s list are sound pastors, he recommends to his reader Robert Schuller and John Wimber as well.  No disciple of Christ should recommend these false teachers to anyone, much less the wide and long term audience of a book. 

And on the next page, Warren says that, with Saddleback, he ”determined to begin with unbelievers, rather than a core of committed Christians.”  Consider this statement carefully.  In the first case, the church is comprised of believers, not those who don’t believe.  By purposefully refusing to build his church surrounded by mature saints, there was nobody to hold Warren accountable as a preacher.  Who in this group of lost folks that he gathered could understand anything spiritual?  The Bible tells us those who are lost cannot discern spiritual matters.  A “pastor” with only lost people in his “church” is no pastor.  What Warren started was an evangelistic outreach to middle class lost Americans – not a church.  Near the end of this page Warren tells us he spent 12 weeks studying lost folks in order to know what his “church” should be like.  “No planning” went into the founding of Saddleback, he told us.  Studying heathens, rather than scripture, was how he planned Saddleback.  Apparently without any elders or other biblical safeguards, he was swept away by one of the “spiritual waves” he was surfing for.

Page 44 – “pastor” Warren excitedly recounts how Saddleback “caught a wave”, when over 200 heathens showed up to the service designed with them in mind.  While many churches have operated in temporary settings, Warren touts Saddleback’s “homeless” years as if they were a special virtue.  Thankfully, he recounts a proper understanding of the Great Commission (page 46), yet he leaves this reader wondering how many of his “seekers” make it around the “bases” to becoming a “servant-hearted Christian.” 

Starting on page 47, Warren uses “conventional wisdom” to create several straw-man myths to knock down.

• “Myth #1: The Only Thing That Large Churches Care About Is Attendance.”  While many have rightfully pointed out the tendency of many large churches to focus too much attention on attendance, I have never heard of any rational person saying it’s the only thing.  Warren’s own words, with the series of “if” statements leave out the essential bit of the Gospel, wherein the lost are confronted with their sin and the attendant need of a Savior.  He “validates” his Gospel-lite by observing, “it’s happening all over the world.”  On page 49 we are told that “Intentionally setting up a strategy and a structure to force ourselves to give equal attention to each purpose is what being a purpose-driven church is all about.”  None of Warren’s 5 listed purposes (page 49) convey the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
• Myths 2, 3, & 4: Once again, Warren touts all-or-nothing myths that are, in truth, common failings among many churches.  In talking about purpose #4, Warren discloses that his view of church discipline consists of dropping from membership those rogues who fail to fulfill the membership covenant.  I don’t think that’s what the Lord tells us in Matthew 18.
• “Myth #5: If You Are Dedicated Enough, Your Church Will Grow.”  Any pastor who believes this “myth” has lost sight of Who builds the church.  To counter “good, godly pastors” who are dedicated yet have churches that are not growing, Warren provides a prescription that follows the same rabbit trail as his “myth” – relying on human effort.
• “Myth #7: All God Expects of Us Is Faithfulness” In the short list that follows, Warren tells us we must also bear fruit (true) and makes it sound as if we can make ourselves be fruitful.  Bearing spiritual fruit is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of saints, not a trait the person can develop.

Let me take a break and say that I think pages 64, 65, 68 – 79, and 393 & 394 are sound teaching.  Not all in this book is worthless or dangerous, but even these passages are mere “spiritual cotton candy”.

On page 77, Warren uses metaphorical, non-Biblical definitions to build a case for churches being driven.  In Scripture, the word drive and derivatives are used in conjunction with people being punished.  Those being treated kindly by God are led, as sheep, not driven.  Context is key to proper interpretation, and Warren strips a word out of its Biblical context and uses its tertiary meaning to lay the foundation for his whole trademarked “driven” model, pulling people away from the Biblical view of how God leads His children.

Near the bottom of page 79, Warren gives a welcome warning to not “allow seekers to drive the total agenda of the church.” – but I must confess that this book, as a whole, leads me to believe Warren allows “seekers” to drive entirely too much of his church’s agenda. 

After listing, on pages 77 – 79, seven things that should not drive churches (tradition, personality, finances, programs, buildings, events, and seekers), he reveals, on page 80, “What is needed today are churches that are driven by purpose instead of by other forces.”  And, “You must begin to look at everything your church does through the lens of five New Testament purposes”.  Warren’s 5 purposes are culled from scripture, but, again, churches and saints are to be led by the Spirit of God – not driven by anything.  And his 5 purposes are not “the lens” of the Word.

On pages 86 & 87, Warren uses different Bible paraphrases to ensure the word “purpose” is used.  On page 91, he tells us that the church in Philippi was “captivated by Paul’s mission” (Philippians 4:15); whereas Paul makes it clear that he preached Christ crucified and resurrected – people were captivated by Christ and led by His Spirit, not Paul’s “mission”.

On page 93, we are pointed to scripture for the correct question, but led to Warren’s self-proclaimed mentor, heathen business guru Peter Drucker, for the diagnostic standard: “Your church’s purpose statement must become the standard by which you measure your congregation’s health and growth.”  Oops.  I thought the Bible and the Holy Spirit give us everything needed to live a righteous life in Christ Jesus (2 Peter 2:1 – 3)

Page 95: Warren tells about a church that he claims was “theologically sound” and “sound asleep”.  He says, “the church leaders had become lazy and lethargic.”  That does not sound like a “theologically sound” church to me.  It appears to be labeled as such to create a straw man to be knocked down by Warren.

On the next page, Warren tells us, “Prior to starting Saddleback Church I took six months to do an extensive, personal Bible study on the church”.  Remember page 27 – not much planning went into Saddleback?  As part of Warren’s Bible study on the church, about a third of his listed scripture passages are from the four Gospel accounts – they describe Christ’s life, but not the church.  Remember – most of the life of Christ took place before the New Testament church was founded.

In Part Two, Warren describes “the 5 purposes for the church” – Biblically sound purposes but not completely sound in his exposition on them.  “Purpose #3: Go and make disciples.  This purpose we call evangelism.”  One must indeed evangelize (preach the Gospel to) lost folks before they can be discipled, but the focus of this aspect of the Great Commission is on the making of disciples – not evangelism.  Seeker sensitive churches are widely critiqued as being ineffective in discipleship – this error may explain that, in part.

In describing Saddleback’s purpose statement, Warren notes “three important distinctives”, the first of which is, “it is stated in terms of results rather than in terms of activity.”  This is a common failing of man – trying to control the results of his activities; pragmatism defined.  (From John MacArthur: “What is pragmatism?  Basically it is the philosophy that results determine meaning, truth, and value–what will work becomes a more important question than what is true.  As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside.  Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.”)  Throughout His Word, God calls His people to obedience – not to results.  Often, the results He brings about are not what man expects or would seek.  I believe the Biblical pattern is to remind us that our efforts have no merit before God – only the work of Jesus does. 

On page 109, Warren sums up his argument for your church to adopt his purpose-driven model by saying, “To do less is to leave to chance the great responsibility we’ve given by our Lord Jesus Christ.”  (emphasis mine)  This is another glimpse into what appears to be Warren’s Armenian view of God.  And if recommending Schuller and Wimber are not enough, Warren touts David (or Paul) Yonggi Cho’s occult Central Church in Seoul, Korea.  This man has written “You can create the presence of Jesus with your mouth.  He is bound by your lips and by your words.”  He and Schuller are fans of one another and disciples of the risen Lord Jesus should view neither of them credibly.

In chapter 6, Warren teaches pastors how to communicate their purposes.  He reviews the narrative of Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem and discovers what he calls, “the Nehemiah principle”.  Since the Jews working on the wall grew discouraged after 26 days of work, Warren projects that onto every church and declares, “Vision and purpose must be restated every twenty-six days to keep the church moving in the right direction.”  Certainly, a degree of repetition is a hallmark of effective communication.  But the larger issue is that of deriving a key principle from a narrative contained in scripture.  This is a dangerous practice, the best example I can think of being Bruce Wilkerson’s subtly deceptive book, “The Prayer of Jabez”.

On pages 113 and 114, Warren encourages good personal management techniques – once again showing how to create “good results” by manipulating people and calling it God’s work.  “People tend to do whatever gets rewarded, so make heroes of people in your church when they do the work of the church.”  God tells us not to seek the applause or rewards of men, but to trust God who is faithful to reward those walk by faith, not by sight.  Biblical leadership often flies in the face of accepted “good personal management techniques.”

Warren stays on track into chapter 7, opening with a story about George Whitfield and John Wesley.  Whitfield preached 18,000 sermons to 100,000 people but left no organization behind, whereas Wesley left us the Methodist denomination – as if what we can see today determines the value of the work these men did.  And as far as I can tell, the Lord Jesus did not leave us much of an organization – what would Warren say about His legacy?  Further in this chapter, pages 126 & 127, Warren recommends false teachers among others who are Biblically sound.  Check out the teachings of Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and Peter Wagner – men who think themselves modern prophets and apostles of the church. 

In discussing Saddleback’s “5 Circles of Community”, pages 131 and following, Warren tells us he focuses evangelism efforts on those who have already attended his church.  He is either derelict in failing to send witnesses out into the lost world or admitting his “church” is fairly well full of lost folks.  He admits that a heathen cannot worship God, but is “convinced that genuine worship is a powerful witness to unbelievers if it is done in a style that makes sense to them.”  Genuine worship is a spiritual act and impossible for a lost person to comprehend.  But note that Warren emphasizes the style of worship, as if the emotional connection with the music can save anyone.  And this from a man who adamantly maintains style and methods don’t matter in justifying his use of all sorts of culturally relevant music and drama.  He goes on to say, “If an unbeliever makes a commitment to regular attendance at Saddleback, I believe it will be just a matter of time until he accepts Christ.”  With Warren’s declared determination to avoid preaching the law or anything that would convict a lost person of his sin, one wonders what in Saddleback would cause anyone to be saved.  Time hanging with supposed saints won’t save anyone unless the Gospel is preached – which does not appear to happen at Saddleback.

On page 133, Warren describes Saddleback’s membership covenant, which requires “a commitment to three spiritual habits: (1) having a daily quiet time, (2) tithing ten percent of their income (Nowhere in scripture are Christian instructed – even implicitly – to tithe, but give as the Spirit of God leads and not under compulsion. – 2 Corinthians 9:6 & 7), and (3) being active in a small group.”  This sounds like the chains of legalism – whereas the Bible tells Saints to be led by the Spirit in such matters.  He sets up this disclosure by describing people who are “dedicated to growing in discipleship” … “but they have not yet gotten involved in ministry.”  This is a contradiction in terms, indicating that pastor Rick has a non-Biblical definition of discipleship. 

Warren says, “Jesus started where people were – at their level of commitment – but he never left them there.”  I do not see this when I read the Bible: lost folks have NO commitment to Christ.  He says Jesus “didn’t lay any heavy requirement” on John and Andrew, but every Jewish boy knew the total commitment required when a Rabbi bid one, “come”.  Further on page 135, Warren claims that Christ did not issue “his ultimate challenge to the crowd” until these people had hung around Him for three years and saw the ways in which He loved them.  “Jesus was able to ask for that kind of commitment only after demonstrating his love for them and earning their trust.”  Unlike sinful man, Jesus the Christ does not need to earn anything before He speaks Truth to anyone.  Warren puts too much emphasis on the lost person rather than on the Gospel. 

In chapter 8, Warren tells us “There are ten areas you must consider as you begin to reshape your church into a purpose-driven church.”  Where in Scripture are pastors advised to “reshape” the churches they shepherd?  He says he cautions other churches to not clone Saddleback, yet lists 10 mandatory “principles”, 5 purposes, and his own “circles of influence” that these churches must embrace.  “Notice that I suggest you grow your church from the outside in, rather than from the inside out.”  Read the book of Acts – the church was made up of saints and disciples who were sent out into the cities, the reverse of what Pastor Rick suggests.  “The problem I have found with an ‘inside-out’ approach is that by the time the church planter has ‘discipled’ his core, they have often lost contact with the community and are actually afraid of interacting with the unchurched.”  This is another indication that Pastor Rick knows very little of Biblical discipleship, but at least gives credit for this backwards idea where it is due – false apostle C. Peter Wagner!

On page 139, we find out that the first year of Saddleback, when ostensibly everyone was lost except (?) Pastor Rick, he “preached very simple, straightforward evangelistic series such as ‘Good News About Common Problems’ and ‘God’s Plan for Your Life.’”  There are pop-psychology messages with a Bible flavor – not evangelistic, or Gospel, presentations.  How can he say that “most of them (the 200 attenders) were brand new believers.” considering his messages?  God’s Word shows the error of this approach: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  1 Corinthians 2:12 – 14

In a highlight box on page 156, we are admonished, “Never criticize any method that God is blessing!”  Yet all the criteria Warren urges us to use are that which the eye can see, and ignores the Biblical command to “test all things, hold on to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), with “good” being in accordance with God’s view.  On page 157 we are urged to use market research to determine “when, where, and how” evangelism should be pursued and on page 158 tells us a church “driven by market forces rather than the Word of God” will be “unstable and unbiblical.”  One page is wrong, one is right. 

Page 160, Warren continues in his study of man as first priority: “I must pay as much attention to the geography, customs, culture, and religious background of my community as I do to those who live in Bible times if I am to faithfully communicate God’s Word.”  The Word of God cannot be understood or communicated unless one seeks to know the literal, grammatical, and historical context of the text.  Nobody in scripture paid that much attention to the spiritually dead people they encountered.  They proclaimed the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus and commended men to believe on Him!

Pastor Rick advises us to tailor the presentation based on the worldly concerns our “crowd” is perceived as having – resulting in a false gospel that might as well be delivered by Joel Osteen.  By telling lost folks how God can make their marriage better, we teach people to look to the Lord for temporal rewards that satisfy our flesh.  But in truth, lost people need to know they are dead in sin, convicted by the Law, so they might realize their deepest need and cry out to the Lamb of God for mercy.  If “god” makes their life more comfortable and they are not confronted with their rebellion against the Holy Creator God, we have made their path to hell all the more pleasant – heaping judgment on ourselves (James 3:1).

Opening up chapter 10, page 173, Warren declares, “Even a casual reading of the New Testament will show that the Gospel spread primarily through relationships.”  Relationships are important, but the Gospel was and is spread through the preaching of it – mostly to people the preacher knows only superficially.  In the next page, we are told, “The people your church is most likely to reach are those who match the existing culture of your church.”  This is true if you do not make disciples and send them out into the world to proclaim the Gospel to all tongues and nations.  The church is not intended to be a reflection of the culture – it is, by definition, counter culture and intended to make a difference in the world.  Warren’s advice is for the church to be conformed to patterns of the world, contrary to Romans 12:1 – 2.

Pastor Rick reinforces this un-Biblical nonsense on pages 188 – 189, where we are told to think like lost people.  This is Warren’s interpretation of the scriptural mandate to “understand the times”?  He shows a shallow view of the Lord: “Jesus often knew what unbelievers were thinking.  He was effective in dealing with people because he understood and was able to defuse the mental barriers they held.”  (emphasis mine)  We are to believe that Jesus sometimes did not know what people were thinking – a limited God.  Warren tells us Christ relied on popular psychological theory in order to effectively deal with His creatures.  And we are once again told, “We must learn to think like unbelievers in order to win them. … “The problem is, the longer you are a believer, the less you think like an unbeliever.”  The Bible tell us the old man is dead – we have been re-born as children of God and are now “a peculiar people”; that we are to be salt and light; that lost folk love darkness because their deeds are dark; and that we are not to hide our light under a bushel.  Pastor Rick thinks the church exists to be valued by pagans!  Paul gives a different prescription in 2 Corinthians 4:3 – 6: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

You can read many objections from Rick Warren anytime someone publicly associates him with Robert Schuller.  But again, on page 190, Warren shows us how big an impact Schuller had on him.  It should not be a surprise that so many of Schuller’s people pleasing ways are embraced and endorsed by Warren.  Near the bottom of Page 191, this pearl: “The unchurched aren’t asking for watered-down messages, just practical ones.  They want to hear something on Sunday that they can apply on Monday.”  Warren’s idea of church is to help lost folks have a better life, according to the world’s standard.  The Creator’s idea of church is for the saints to come together for worship, discipleship, fellowship, and be sent into the world proclaiming the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  And yes, we welcome lost people into the church – we simply don’t expect them to be comfortable there.  They should be confronted with the Word of God and their sinful nature.

Warren’s own “tale of success” in the early days of Saddleback tells the sad truth in what is left unsaid.  He defined Saddleback as “a church for the unchurched”, and he attracted many of them, summing up with, “You have to decide who you want to impress.”  Warren wants to impress lost folk – his charge, however, is to honor God.  On page 195: “This is the heart of Saddleback’s evangelism strategy: We must be willing to catch fish on their own terms.”  Fish don’t want to be caught!  And lost men do not seek after God.  His Word doesn’t tell us to be on the same wavelength as lost men, He tells us to be fishers of men – different from them, with a mission they cannot understand.  Warren tells us (page 197) that he has determined that Jesus had no “standard approach” in evangelism.  He is talking about “style points”, not content or motive.  I am convinced that a careful reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus did have a “standard approach.  Evangelist Ray Comfort sums it up thusly – “With the Law we break the proud heart; with the gospel we heal the broken heart.”  And, “If we care about the lost, we will not hesitate to speak to them about sin, righteousness, and judgment … the way Jesus did.”  In Mark 10:17 – 22, the Lord used the law to expose the rich man as idolater, in John 5:45 – 47, Jesus confronts the Jews with the accusation of the Law of Moses.  In John 4:4 – 26 the Lord seeks out the woman at the well and uses the law to gently confront her with her sin – violating the 7^th commandment.

On page 219, Pastor Rick says, “Jesus often established a beachhead for evangelism in a person’s life by meeting a felt need.”  And he cites not one example – because there are none.  Dr. Luke records this encounter with the “crowd”: “And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.  And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”  (Luke 14:25 – 27)  The Apostle John recorded this encounter (John 6:24 – 27):  “When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.  And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?  Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”  And in verses 52 – 61: ”The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.  These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?  When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?”  Culminating in verses 65 & 66: “And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

Jesus doesn’t sound like Rick Warren.  To Whom shall we listen?

Ever the pragmatist, Warren tells us (page 224) that a passage in Luke 4 is all about Jesus “meeting needs and healing hurts.”  Jesus used that well known passage from Isaiah to establish His claim as Messiah, not “meet needs or heal hurts”.  On page 230, he beats the same drum: “The unchurched are not asking that we change the message or even dilute it, only that we show its relevance. …  I’ve found that the unchurched in America are very interested in Bible doctrine when it is applied in practical and relevant ways to their lives.”  What I’ve observed is that lost folks – whether they be “churched” or “unchurched” – want their ears tickled.  They want to be told that God loves them and wants them to be healthy and wealthy – things that are “practical and relevant”.  This is why prosperity gospel pimps such as T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen can fill up stadiums!  The Word of God tells us to preach the simple Truth and not work to earn the approval of men.  Lost folk do not need motivational messages on how to “live large with Jesus” – they need to repent and be saved.

Warren thinks (page 232) that the major purpose of Christ’s parables was to entertain folk and ensure they would remember His story.  But in Matthew 15, Mark 4, Mark 7, Luke 8, John 10 and other passages, His very own disciples failed to understand the parable and sought an explanation.  And while Pastor Rick cites Matthew 13:34, he did so as a proof-text, as verse 35 makes clear: He spoke in parables to fulfill scripture, not to satisfy the felt needs of unchurched Harry.  But if His purpose was as Warren claims, why did so many people need – and still need – an explanation of them?  To close this question, the Lord Himself gives us the answer in Matthew 13:10 – 13 (And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.)  And Luke 8:9 – 10 (And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.)

On page 241, “America’s Pastor” tells us “More people are won to Christ by feeling God’s presence than by all our apologetic arguments combined.”  This is a false argument: apologetics is not what wins people to Christ – the Gospel does that.  It is by preaching the Word of the Lord that people are saved – not by feeling anything.  He ascribes the salvation of the 3,000 people recorded in Acts 2 to their having felt God’s presence.  But the Bible makes it clear that the Spirit of God empowered Peter and it was the Word of God proclaimed by Peter that caused the response.  Read Acts 2:1 – 36 to see the set-up and the message of Christ crucified.  Then in verses 37 – 41: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

Do you perceive these people were saved by having “felt God’s presence” or by the Word of God piercing their sinful hearts?

Page 243, Warren joins countless seeker sensitive fans by misappropriating 1 Corinthians 14:23.  Paul’s main argument was not to restrict the use of tongues so lost people wouldn’t think them foolish – this is a final argument in Paul’s long, passionate discourse against the improper use of this spiritual gift.  His main point was to encourage the saints to speak in a known tongue so others in the church could understand them.  It’s almost “and by the way, don’t you see how a heathen who might wander in here could think you mad?”  It was not normative in the early church for lost people to fill up the meeting place.  The church was of and for believers.

On pages 244 and 245 Warren furthers his humanistic view that unchurched people ought to have their felt needs addressed from the pulpit.  He again tells us these unchurched “expect to hear the Bible when they come to church.”  How would such a person know what to expect from the Word of God?  Go back to 1 Corinthians 2:12 – 14.  Pastor Rick tells us “They are looking for solutions, not a scolding.”  The problem for Rick and other seeker sensitive pastors is that unless a lost person is confronted with his condition (being dead is sin) he will not see any value in the Lamb of God.  The Gospel is not a scolding – but neither is it offering solutions to life’s circumstantial problems.  Warren instructs, “Design one worship service to edify believers and another service to evangelize the unchurched friends brought by your members.”  He then describes how he has marginalized the Saints by devoting weekends at Saddleback to lost folks.  We can readily surmise that Saddleback is a church on Wednesday evenings, but not on Saturdays or Sundays.

In chapter 14 – Designing a Seeker-Sensitive Service, Warren once again relies on and recommends a false prophet to make his point – citing “Apostle” Peter Wagner on page 267:  “When you run out of space, you experience what Pete Wagner calls ‘sociological strangulation’.”  But many churches have experienced true fellowship and spiritual growth while struggling with the logistical constraints of what experts see as too little space.  My wife heard a pastor in such a situation say, “Some pastors think you need 200 square feet per person.  We have 200 people per square feet!”  And he was praising God – not complaining about being “sociologically strangled.”

On to chapter 16 – Preaching to the Unchurched, Pastor Rick says, “The common ground we have with unbelievers is not the Bible, but our common needs, hurts, and interests as human beings.”  This is fine guidance on how to start a fraternal organization, such as a Rotary Club – the Bible tells us that unbelievers’ greatest need is salvation.  That we saints share some of the same sinful “habits and hang-ups” as the “unchurched” can be an encouragement to the lost, as we teach them that all are unworthy apart from Christ.  Nowhere in this chapter does Pastor Rick advise the use of the law to convict people of their sin; he only wants the lost folk to know they are valuable and loved, etc.  They may well go to hell thinking this, having never been convicted of sin or saved by grace.  Good feelings save nobody.

On page 312, Warren poses a handful of questions that unchurched people want answered before they are willing to join the church:

• Do I fit here?
• Does anybody want to know me?
• Am I needed?
• What is the advantage of joining?
• What is required of members?

Rick shows us, once again, that his focus is on growing the “church” by answering the “felt needs” of the flesh – not following the Biblical mandate on how to lead a flock of believers.  He is building a social fraternity and calling it “church”.

In chapter 16 – Turning Members into Ministers, Warren mixes some solid Biblical instruction with a humanistic, Jungian psychological matrix appraisal of people – his five SHAPE factors.  A detailed comparison of Warren’s SHAPE to Jungian psychology and God’s Word can be found at the end of this review.

Page 384, Warren again confirms he sees man as more important than does our Creator: “The most critical factor in a new ministry isn’t the idea, but the leadership.”  Jesus, the most important human ever, said this about Himself vs. the message (or idea): “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.  (John 8:28)”, “but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, (John 15:15b – 16a).”  The Bible tells us the main thing is the message, not the messenger.

Lastly, page 395 – “Purpose-driven churches are led by purpose-driven leaders.”  Although I care nothing for Warren’s penchant for using “purpose-driven”, leave it aside.  Consider this – Churches are led by leaders.  Now consider the Words of the One Who “wrote the Book” on “how to do church”:  “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”  (2 Timothy 2:1 – 2)  And recall the Words of Jesus, above – He spoke and worked only what His Father told Him.  The only leadership is from God and the truly effective pastor will be purposeful and Spirit led.

Quotes from Schuller – or is it Rick Warren?

Rick Warren denies virtually every connection and influence with or of Robert Schuller.  But judge for yourself – read a few choice quotes from Schuller and see if Warren’s teaching doesn’t line up near perfectly.  Read more at http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac23.htm

 

“Yes, here is a theology for church growth.  Here is a theology for success, for the secret of success is to find a need and fill it.  Truly, when the church reforms and refines all of its theological expressions around every person’s daily need for self-affirmation, it shall flourish ‘like trees planted by rivers of water.’”  (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 175)

“People who have studied our work and read our materials have said that historically we are not like other churches.  Denominations and religions started with teaching a theology about God.  Whenever there was disagreement with each other about a certain detail, the result was to establish a new religion or branch thereof, so today there are many different denominations and lots of different religions.  When I started this ministry, I chose to focus on human need and said,

“Let’s ask what a human being really is?  What does he need?”  And is there a God who can provide for those needs and what kind of God does he need?  So we started talking about the needs in humanity and we defined the single deepest need of the human being.”

(Robert Schuller, “Mirror or Window People: Which Are You?”  August 2, 2004)

“Classical theology has erred in its insistence that theology be ‘God-centered,’ not ‘man-centered’.”  (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 64)

“The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person.  Rather, we have started from the ‘unworthiness of the sinner,’ and that starting point has set the stage for the glorification of human shame in Christian theology.”  (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 162)

Home

CHARTING THE WARREN-JUNG CONNECTION

 

(extracted from http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm)

THEIR CONNECTION ON PERSONALITY THEORY

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“When you minister in a manner consistent with the personality God gave you, you experience fulfillment, satisfaction, and fruitfulness.” (The Purpose Driven Life, p. 246)“…when you are forced to minister in a manner that is “out of character” for your temperament, it creates tension and discomfort, requires extra effort and energy, and produces less than the best results. This is why mimicking someone else’s ministry never works. You don’t have their personality.” (PDL, p. 245)	“…the ultimate aim and strongest desire of all mankind is to develop that fulness (sic) of life which is called personality… To the extent that a man is untrue to the law of his being and does not rise to personality, he has failed to realize his life’s meaning.” (The Development of Personality, Collected Works 17; from The Essential Jung, pg. 191, 207)	There is absolutely no biblical precedent for this position. Personality typology has never been a criteria for God choosing someone for ministry, but is in great part grounded in Jungian psychology. Did Paul rely on personality assessment to guide his ministry? Hardly… “God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God.” 1 Cor 1:27-29 “And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Cor 12:9-10

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON A MUTUAL BELIEF IN THE “UNCONSCIOUS”

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“You may be driven by a painful memory, a haunting fear, or an unconscious belief.” (PDL, p. 27)“(Guilt-driven people) often unconsciously punish themselves by sabotaging their own success.” (PDL, pp. 27-28)	“The unconscious . . . is the source of the instinctual forces of the psyche and of the forms or categories that regulate them, namely the archetypes.” (The Structure of the Psyche, CW 8, par. 342)“Constant observation pays the unconscious a tribute that more or less guarantees its cooperation. One of the most important tasks of psychic hygiene [is] to pay continual attention to the symptomatology of unconscious contents and processes.” (The Portable Jung, New York: Penguin Books, 1986, p. 156)	The “unconscious” is the foundational concept of both Freudian and Jungian psychology, and has no biblical basis whatsoever. In fact, Scripture does not allow for the idea that people are “driven” by an “unconscious belief.” By endorsing the idea of the unconscious, Warren is promoting the Jungian belief that people must analyze the forces of the unconscious to discover their life’s purpose. According to Scripture, any driving force outside of God’s will is sin, no matter where it resides. Psychology, however, downplays our personal accountability for sin by making the “unconscious” the ultimate reservoir and bastion of unavoidable human instinct. “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON UNCONSCIOUS METAPHORS & IMAGES

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“If I asked how you picture life, what image would come to your mind? That image is your life metaphor. It’s the view of life that you hold, consciously or unconsciously, in your mind.” (PDL, pp. 41-42)“Your unspoken life metaphor influences your life more than you realize. It determines your expectations, your values, your relationships, your goals, and your priorities.” (PDL, p. 42)	“An archetypal content expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors.” (“The Psychology of the Child Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 267)Archetypes are not inborn ideas, but “typical forms of behaviour which, once they become conscious, naturally present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness.” (Collected Works 8, par. 435) “Indeed, the fate of the individual is largely dependent on unconscious factors.” (“Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” CW 9)	The analysis of “metaphors” housed in the unconscious is a trademark concept of psychology, not of Scripture. The use of images, fantasies, and dreams to better understand our “unconscious” is a signature feature of Jungian psychotherapy that borders on the occult.

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON USING JUNGIAN TERMINOLOGY

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“God made introverts and extroverts… He made some people ‘thinkers’ and others ‘feelers.’” (PDL, p. 245)“Your personality will affect how and where you use your spiritual gifts and abilities. For instance, two people may have the same gift of evangelism, but if one is introverted and other is extroverted, that gift will be expressed in different ways.” (PDL, p. 245) “Ask yourself questions:… Am I more introverted or extroverted? Am I more a thinker or a feeler?” (PDL, pp.251-252)	“Two types (of typical differences in human psychology) especially become clear to me; I have termed them the introverted and the extraverted types.” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6 par. 1)“I have found from experience that the basic psychological functions, this is, functions which are genuinely as well as essentially different from other functions, prove to be thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these functions habitually predominates, a corresponding type results. I therefore distinguish a thinking, a feeling, a sensation, and an intuitive type. Each of these types may moreover be either introverted or extraverted…” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6)	Warren is explicitly using the specific terminology of the psychological typology theory originally conceived by Carl Jung. Despite the claims of his supporters, Warren has clearly based his Personality Theory (the “P” in his SHAPE teaching) on the unbiblical foundation of Jungian psychology.“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8 “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 1 Cor 2:12-13

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“The Bible gives us plenty of proof that God uses all types of personalities. Peter was a sanguine. Paul was a choleric. Jeremiah was a melancholy. When you look at the personality differences in the twelve disciples, it’s easy to see why they sometimes had interpersonal conflict.” (PDL, p. 245)“There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ temperament for ministry.” (PDL, p. 245)	“…the physicians of ancient times…tried to reduce the bewildering diversity of mankind to orderly groups… The very names of the Galenic temperaments betray their origin in the pathology of the four “humours.” Melancholic denotes a preponderance of black bile, phlegmatic a preponderance of phlegm or mucus, sanguine a preponderance of blood, and choleric a preponderance of choler, or yellow bile.” (“Psychological Typology” CW 6)“The whole make-up of the body, its constitution in the broadest sense, has in fact a very great deal to do with psychological temperament…” (“Psychological Typology” CW 6)	Despite Warren’s claim, the Bible never gives “proof” of the classification of personalities; it is a purely pagan concoction. The four temperaments, as conceived by Hippocrates and later developed by Galen, was a prevalent Greek philosophy during the time of Paul’s apostolic ministry. Unlike Warren and Jung, however, Paul did not implement these Greeks ideas into his teachings. In fact, he categorically rejected them and “determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (I Cor 2:2).“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” I Timothy 6:20 Worse yet, Warren is teaching that a person’s “no right or wrong” personality is somehow unaffected by the fall and is always beneficial for ministry. How, we ask, does a “phlegmatic temperament” towards laziness and slothfulness serve God’s purpose in ministry?

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON PERSONALITY TESTING

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“Today there are many books and tools that can help you understand your personality so you can determine how to use it for God.” (PDL, p. 246)	MBTI is “based on Jung’s theory of psychological types.” (Isabel Briggs Myers, Introduction to Type, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983, p.4)“The (MBTI) Indicator was developed specifically to carry Carl Jung’s theory of type (Jung, 1921, 1971) into practical application.” (Dr. Gordon Lawrence, People Types & Tiger Stripes, p. 6, also p. x) “Carl Jung’s psychology lies behind…the MBTI.” (Robert Innes, Personality Indicators and The Spiritual Life, p.8)	Without qualifying this statement, Warren is promoting any and all Jungian personality and temperament tests and theories, including the widely-used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Kiersey Temperament Sorter (an offshoot of the MBTI), and the Enneagram Test, which has its origin in Sufism, a mystical offshoot of Islam. (Click here for more information on Enneagram).Despite the contrary advice offered by Warren, Christians must acknowledge the Bible as the only book needed to understand the human condition: “For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12 (See also II Timothy 3:16-17)

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON THE ENDORSEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“Every behavior is motivated by a belief, and every action is prompted by an attitude. God revealed this thousands of years before psychologists understood it.” (PDL, p. 181)	“(Unconscious phenomena) manifest themselves in the individual’s behaviour… ” (“Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” CW 9)“Modern psychological development leads to a much better understanding as to what man really consists of.” (“Psychology and Religion” CW 11)	Warren is suggesting here that psychologists have the same understanding as God on the issue of human behavior, thus putting man’s “wisdom” on equal footing with God’s revelation.If Warren truly believes in the preeminence of God’s revelation to understand man, then why does he rely so heavily on the “useless wisdom” of psychology instead of Scripture? “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS‘; and again, ‘THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.’” I Cor 3:19-20

---

THEIR CONNECTION ON FINDING AND DEVELOPING PERSONALITY

WARREN	JUNG	BIBLE
“The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape. To do this you must discover your shape, learn to accept and enjoy it, and then develop it to its fullest potential.” (PDL, p. 249)The SHAPE program states: “To discover your S.H.A.P.E. is to discover where God is calling you to do His work in the world.”	“Only the man who can consciously assent to the power of the inner voice becomes a personality.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17)“The achievement of personality means nothing less than the optimum development of the whole individual human being.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17) “In so far as every individual has the law of his life inborn in him, it is theoretically possible for any man to follow this law and to become a personality, this is, to achieve wholeness.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17)	Finding your SHAPE has no biblical support. Warren’s teaching that one must “discover his shape” is philosophically and systematically akin to Jung’s teaching that a man must “consciously assent to the power of the inner voice” and be true to “the law of his being.”While Warren has rightly acknowledged God’s sovereign purpose in creating us, he has mistakenly made God’s divine purpose synonymous with our so-called “shape” by advocating the Jungian idea of developing the personality to “achieve wholeness.” This Jungian process, however, does not serve God, but serves the god within us. Scripture calls for an active, heartfelt obedience to God’s will through the transforming power of the Spirit, not a misguided exploration of our natural psychological makeup to define our God-given purpose. “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” Proverbs 3:5-6 “…your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” 1 Cor 2:5

---

CONCLUSION: THIS IS NOT SIMPLY “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION”

Yes, Jesus associated with sinners, but he certainly didn’t borrow his teachings from the Pharisees or any other false teachers. Clearly there is a very tangible connection between Rick Warren’s SHAPE teaching on personality and the psychological theories of Carl Jung. Not only does Warren base his teachings on parallel psychological concepts, but he uses exact Jungian terms to make his case. By focusing on assessing and developing one’s personality as the key to a successful life or ministry, Warren, like Jung, is promoting a reliance on one’s inner self instead of on God’s transcendent truth and the working of the Holy Spirit. As a popular Christian teacher, how can Warren ignore the crucial biblical truths of the sufficiency of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit to perfectly furnish every Christian with the ability to minister according to God’s purpose?

 Stuart L Brogden Home

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren

]]> http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/11/21/dealing-with-the-emergent-church-part-i-what-they-get-right/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:44:55 +0000 Joel http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/11/21/dealing-with-the-emergent-church-part-i-what-they-get-right/
]]>