ou 41-9112 4065 ou eletrochurch@hotmail.com

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.

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

I’ve been watching a lot of Ovation TV since I discovered it a couple weeks ago. Many of the designers they speak to are  fascinating beyond what they have to say about the things they design. Many of them could be classified as philosophers just as easily. One such man was John Maeda. In addition to his degrees from MIT in computers and electrical engineering, he is also an art school graduate, the current president of the Rhode Island School of Design, and author of the book The Laws of Simplicity.

One statement he made caught my attention: “Creative people are very comfortable with ambiguity.” That made me think of the leaders of the Emerging Church movement. The ideas put forth in Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy (see my review here) are downright heretical if you believe in the Law of Antithesis. He seems very comfortable with ambiguity as do many others in the movement. Does this mean that for the first time Christianity is not only attracting mainly creative people to leadership roles but that we could possibly have a generation that doesn’t have a word for heretic? The thought is both awe inspiring and fear provoking at the same time.

I, for one, would love a world where Christians all accepted one another without having to throw around words like heretic when someone thinks differently from the rest of us. However, there is that sticky problem that Paul seems to believe there are people who are heretics. Tolerance for ambiguity could quickly become a license to believe whatever you want. Where would we draw the line in a world that embraces ambiguity?

I believe the progressive wing of the Churches of Christ have come to the most biblical answer I’ve seen regarding the issue. They don’t reduce it down to proposition statements you have to believe (As the United Church of Christ pastor and singer Brian Sirchio says in one of his songs, “Jesus never said, ‘Believe in me I’m the second member of the Trinity.’”)  but they rather reduce it to three situations in which you’ve forfeited the grace of God: First, you no longer believe. Second, you no longer are penitent. And third, you believe you can be saved by something other than grace (i.e. works). You can read a summary of their view by clicking here and by using this table of contents you can read about their position in more detail (look for the sections listed as “progressive”).

In part two I hope to discuss in more depth what I feel constitutes apostasy. My prayer for the Church is that we stop labeling everyone who disagrees with us as a heretic but also keep in mind that there are real heretics. I believe, however, that heresy is a lot more rare than many want to believe.

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.

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/

Further Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration and a Response to Frank Beckwith

11/25/2009 – James White

I returned from a very enjoyable jaunt up and down South Mountain with my wife (on bicycles, of course) to discover that Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler had tweeted a link to my comments on the Manhattan Declaration. I am very thankful Dr. Mohler felt them worthy of notice. I said recently Dr. Mohler is the smartest Southern Baptist alive, and I gain much from listening to his podcasts (again while slowly cranking along on my quest to finish my second trip around the earth at the equator—only 2800 miles away now!).

Of course, one of the main questions I have received since posting my thoughts (and referring to those of John MacArthur) has to do with Dr. Mohler’s defense of his signing the document. It has never been my intention to excite that spectrum of folks who exist on the fringes of meaningful apologetics who are constantly looking for a new conflict, a new battle. Yes, I had read Dr. Mohler’s comments on why he signed the document prior to writing my article. I appreciate his position, but I beg to differ. I am thankful Dr. Mohler does not view the document as a theological manifesto requiring him to abandon a biblical view of the gospel. But as I and others have pointed out, it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak of what Christians should do, and in fact, must do, in the face of an ever increasingly hostile secularism, without doing so in the context of the gospel itself. In other words, a Christian who believes in the God-centeredness of the gospel of grace will respond differently to secularism than one who embraces a much more man-centered, works-oriented “gospel.” And given the long history of Rome’s violation of biblical teachings regarding the gospel (not just on the matter of sola fide, but the entire complex of doctrines that forms Rome’s sacramental system, including its rejection of sola scriptura, its sacerdotal priesthood, and its perfection-denying doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), I, and others, find it impossible to speak in unison with a Church that claims to define “Church,” embody “Church,” all the while perverting the gospel of Christ. Our social duties are not separate from the gospel. They are defined by it. Now I accept that Dr. Mohler honestly believes the following words are true, and as a result, signed the document:
 

To Cont. Reading

The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration

11/23/2009 – James White

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

These words conclude the Manhattan Declaration, promulgated November 20, 2009. There is much in this document that any serious-minded Christian not only can agree with, but simply must agree with. There is no question that the forces of secularism are moving quickly, under the guise of “social advancement” and “equal rights,” to attack, denigrate, and, in their highest hopes and aspirations, relegate the Christian worldview to the trash heap of history. Evil men, and women, hold positions of power in Western societies, and since it is inevitably true that the Christian witness enrages those who love the darkness (John 7:7), they are doing all they can to subvert and silence that witness which so exposes their consciences. The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.

But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents’ production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.

This document presents a Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that “Christian” then is “Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content.” It does no good to muddle this discussion with “Well, what about the medieval church” questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the “non-negotiables.”

But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I’ve ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So…why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King’s writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.” In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who would “quite readily deny” the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.

There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says “the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us”? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an “alter Christus”? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the “right” side of a vitally important social issue.

This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made “common cause” with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God’s truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is ever truly good, or truly moral?

These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.

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.

I really like this…

Scripture is not meant for private interpretation but it is to over rule them! Sounds kinda scriptural to me…

2Pe 1:20  knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

2Ti 2:15  Give diligence to present yourself approved to God, a workman unashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

I remember someone had once said to me that you could interpret the bible individually, meaning privately. But scripture says that you can’t!

Another thing that hit me after reading these verses was that ‘post-modern, relativism’ is made up of personal opinion; what’s true for you isn’t true for me’. When one counters that with what God actually says on any given subject then critique can often be felt as a personal attack. So is it any wonder why people cry out… “you’re intolerant, you are not speaking in love”.

The other point is that tolerance is raised to a higher virtue than truth today. The word tolerance has changed to mean something more than respecting differing opinions, it now means ‘not believing in anything for sure’.

As I have come across people who have embraced certain teachings that are not scriptural I am reminded of these verses:

Eph 4:14-16  that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;  but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.

Charles Spurgeon said:

The glorious charity of the present day is such, that it believes lies to be as good as truth; and lies and truth have met together and kissed each other; and he that telleth truth is called a bigot, and truth has ceased to be honourable in the world! Ah! beloved, we know better than to profess such unlimited, but false charity; the truth is, we know how to "hold fast the form of sounds words," which has been given to us, because in this way we grow. Changeable people cannot grow much.

Joh 8:31  So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,
Joh 8:32  and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Just my thoughts for the day

Enter the Labyrinth

by Mike Oppenheimer

Let Us Reason Ministries

Walking the labyrinth has become a popular spiritual exercise across the country and around the world. I first read of it in Leadership Magazine, a Christian publication and became a bit concerned, since looking into it further I’m definitely concerned.

Labyrinths are said to been used for over 3000-3500 years (depending who you ask), accurate dating has been difficult. We are told by those who promote their use that Labyrinths are ancient and have been a part of the sacred landscape through human history. Those who use the labyrinth describe them as a pattern with power and a purpose. They are called “divine imprints,” that symbolize an archetype of wholeness. The Labyrinth is said to encourage healing, clarity, and peacefulness. There are claims of profound experiences as they affect the people who use them by connecting them with the deepest part of themselves. Labyrinths can often have a particular “specialty” in healing, improving ones health or alleviating symptoms of certain diseases.

More here (note picture of labyrinth at Eastern Mennonite University):

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=390

The Manhattan Declaration

This post will probably end up being a compilation of several thoughts, namely because I haven’t quite isolated all of my thoughts, consolidating them into a coherent whole.  That said, I aim to focus most of my energies on the idea of stories.  Or to use a biblical term, parables.  And finally, to expand it a little more, metaphors.

I want to start off by highlighting a few thoughts in a book that stuck out to me.  Then I’ll probably wander aimlessly for a few paragraphs and call it quits in favor of eating lunch.

From Reading the Bible Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg (which I highly recommend), speaking of metaphors through which we see scripture, the author says this:

Buddhists often speak of the teaching of Buddha as “a finger pointing to the moon…”  As the metaphor implies, one is to see (and pay attention to) that to which the finger points.  …the Bible is like a finger pointing to the moon.  Christians sometimes make the mistake of thinking that being a Christian is about believing in the finger rather than seeing the Christian life as a relationship to that to which the finger points.  …Being a Christian is not about believing in Christianity.

This train of thought is stimulating on many levels.  To put Borg’s thoughts in context, he is speaking specifically about the Bible, the lenses through which we see it and the functions we’ve assigned it.  As I begin thinking about all the relative implications of his description of scripture, I can’t help but think about some of the stories, parables and metaphors contained within scripture itself.  I’m thinking more pointedly about Jesus and his use of story.

I’ve often wondered why Jesus speaks most often using stories or parables.  We know the obvious answer; stories are a way of expressing life in terms we can understand.  I would argue that the not so obvious answer is most often the one we either choose to ignore, or fail to immerse ourselves the story to find its true meaning.  Thus, in reference to the Bible as a whole, as it is most consistently metaphor (a discussion for another time), we glaze over the stuff we don’t necessarily like and/or we often refuse to enter into the story and discover it’s true message.  Yet, since our view of scripture more closely resembles a text book with ultimate power over us, rather than the ground supporting us, we pass over so much of the rich truths contained in the metaphor as a whole (Reading the Bible Again… p30).

So then, referring back to the end of the quote above, our energies are spent believing in Christianity or believing in the finger rather than focusing our attention on that which the finger, the Bible, metaphor or story points.  Ultimately, hidden within all this language is the notion that, for too long, we’ve cast our gaze on the lens, or the figure, and we’ve sometimes in hostility, defended those things, refusing to follow the line of sight, to enter into the story and discover that which we were originally intended to understand.  In short, we must, in humility, look deeper, and consider the implications for me and the life I am living, today, in this moment.

There are many books I have read which I highly disliked. Rip Van Winkle to me was the most pointless and moral-less story I have read. Shakespeare’s plays were really hard to read in that old English. Canterbury Tales was just outright boring. Books on the Japanese internment camps reminded you of some of the most horrid things America did to those people, thus not really an enjoyable read. But, I am reading a book that I prophesy to top my list of World’s Worst Books.

Ready for the title? It’s called Stories of Emergence. Sounds like a book about the emerging church right? Well, to be honest, I don’t really know. The book collects various stories of people who have moved from absolute to authentic (whatever that means). It is positively the most annoying book I have read yet, and I’m only reading through it for research. It is very vague and fluffy. The people in the book express their beliefs (in a vague and fluffy way) and give you very short glimpses of where they have come from and where they are now.

There is one idea in which all the stories have in common so far (I haven’t finished the book yet) and it is this: the instituted church is bad. Why? Well, I”m not sure why. The writers speak in relative terms, use vague language and swerve so much it’s hard to tell what they are even saying. I sure hope the authors know what they believe because I sure don’t. That is why I have given it a new title: Stories of Vague Beliefs Expressed in the First-Person.

Jag har skrivit om Andrew Jones, aka TallSkinnyKiwi, tidigare. Han var en av de första bloggarna inom emerging church konversationen och har betytt mycket för många runt om i världen när gäller att omorientera sig kring mission, församling och lärjungaskap i en efterkristen, pluralistisk och postmodern (eller vad man nu vill kalla det) värld. Kolla in hans blogg, rekommenderar den skarpt!

Han och hans familj har just påbörjat andra delen av deras resa för att stödja lokala församlingar och pionjära projekt – eller som de säger “to empower missional entrepreneurs”, de siktar på att besöka ytterligare 25 länder (de hoppas på att komma till Sverige i sommar).

I alla fall, här är intervju med Andrew från 2007, gjord av Bill Kinnon… Enjoy!

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.

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

For some time I’ve noticed a disturbing tend with some of these Purpose Driven and Emergent guys substituting the phrase Christ Follower in the place of Christian. Chris of Fighting of the Faith does excellent job picking part this methodology in the sermon review here.

November 19, 2009

No Christians Allowed??

•  
  •  
    •  

      • • Seeker Driven Pastor Answers the Question, “Are Mormons Christians?”
        • Archbishop of Canterbury Claims Higher Taxes Would Be Good for Society
        • The Parable of the Talents is NOT About Time Management
        • Sermon Review, “No Christians Allowed” by Bill Maye of Brick City Community Church, Sanford, NC

—

Please Support This Important Radio Outreach