Should Sarah Stay At Home?

This video clip was brought to my attention by a concerned brother. Is Voddie Bauchum being sexist? Is he rightly handling the Word of God? I really dig Voddie, but I'm not too sure about this. I'm going to be spending some thinking about it. What do you think?



The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which is typically, dead on with their take on issues such as this, takes a different stand. Here is the first of a 4 part series that they have done concerning Mrs. Palin's run asking the question: "Does Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?"

Emerging Church Part 4

We will soon be turning to two books which will reveal to us where emergents are coming from by two notable representatives: Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. But for today, I just want to introduce to a third member of the group who wrote the emerging church's "Response to our critics" that I mentioned in Part One- Doug Pagitt.

Doug Pagitt is pastor of a church in Minneapolis called Solomon's Porch

For a video introduction to Solomon's Porch, a church where there is "no statement of belief" and "no authority structure," where the members say that "the only thing that matters is knowing you have a friend at the end of the day" and that "I see the Bible as changing" and thinking otherwise is a "waste of time,"enjoy the following:



Now, I'm just going to direct you to some stuff from the Pyromaniac's blog. They have audio and video and commentary that is dead on.

For a take on Pagitt's defense of yoga and how it is better than the Scriptures for reducing stress go here.

For his response to questions on the afterlife go here.

Can anyone seriously view, listen, read this and see Biblical Christianity represented?
Yet Pagitt's stuff is published by "Christian" book houses and speaks at "Christian" conferences.

Where, may I ask, is our discernment?

Emerging Church Part 3

So far we have seen what the emergents say that they are for and what they are against and it is likely that many of us would agree on many points.

But now is where it gets scary.

To what and to whom do they find their solutions?

9 Marks has done us a tremendous service by preserving a suggested reading list from the emergent village and giving us some biographical information about the authors. Take a look at the list, and remember, these are the guys that are influencing those who are driving this movement.

The list is here.

When looking over the list, did you notice a common thread running through all the authors? They all share the common low view of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not authoritative, inerrant, absolute truth. They are something that must be redefined, reinterpreted, reimagined. And worse.

Notice a term that Stan Grenz employed: "trajectory." That word gets used a lot. Bell uses it. McLaren uses it. What does it mean?

What has been called the "trajectory hermeneutic" is the idea that the words of Scripture were truth for the original hearers/readers, but it is not true for us in the same sense that it was for them. The words of Scripture, instead, were launched out on a trajectory path from that point, where we, now, are receiving them at another point in the arch. A more enlightened point. A greater evolved point. An emerged point.

So, for example, the Scriptures clearly tell us that homosexuality is wrong. They reply- well, it was wrong, for them. But they received that "truth" at its most basest level, when, at that stage in the evolution of man's thinking, they couldn't have comprehended anything less- but then it was launched forward through space and time and we have received that "truth" at a time when we are more intelligent, more enlightened. We understand that homosexuality is caused by numerous factors and cannot rightly be called "sin." Thus, we don't take the passages at their face value, but we look for the principles underlying the passage that give us an idea of the trajectory that passage has been on. We know, now, that the main concern was not homosexuality, but it was freedom from bondage, etc. So we now see that we are called to liberate homosexuals from the artificial bondage our society has put them under.

That, in its most simplified form, is kind of the idea.

When we get to Bell's "Velvet Elvis" you will see what I mean.

Speaking of Rob Bell and influences. I listened to a message of his some years back and he recommended several books to his congregation. One of those books made it into the footnotes of his book "Velvet Elvis."

Footnote #143 reads: "For a mind blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine creativity, set aside three months and read Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything (Boston:Shambhala 2001).

Do you know who Ken Wilbur is? Check this out.

That's right. Bell, a pastor of a "Christian" church, author of "Christian" books, tells everyone to spend three months- three months!!- studying the writings of a new age, Buddhism-practicing guy to understand the universe.

Scroll down his wikipedia page and you will find this excerpt from the book that Rob Bell recommends we spend three months on:

Are the mystics and sages insane? Because they all tell variations on the same story, don't they? The story of awakening one morning and discovering you are one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and infinite fashion. Yes, maybe they are crazy, these divine fools. Maybe they are mumbling idiots in the face of the Abyss. Maybe they need a nice, understanding therapist. Yes, I'm sure that would help. But then, I wonder. Maybe the evolutionary sequence really is from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, each transcending and including, each with a greater depth and greater consciousness and wider embrace. And in the highest reaches of evolution, maybe, just maybe, an individual's consciousness does indeed touch infinity—a total embrace of the entire Kosmos—a Kosmic consciousness that is Spirit awakened to its own true nature. It's at least plausible. And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story, which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds totally insane?

– Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, 42-3

This, right here, is enough to get me to put Bell's book down and not bother with anything he says ever again.

But I know that many will pooh pooh it and say: "Well, I believe that truth can be found everywhere...yada yada yada." Okay, I get "all truth is God's truth" but, my friends, Wilber is not promoting "truth." His is promoting, what the Bible calls "the doctrines of demons."

But we'll see more of that as we go when we actually crack open Bell's and McLaren's books.

"Against You, You Only, Have I Sinned"

In case you missed it: a music pastor for a church in Australia recently confessed (after being outed first apparently) to having faked cancer in order to cover up an addiction to porn. While faking undergoing cancer treatments (utilizing an oxygen mask and shaving his head etc.), he released a song called "Healer" speaking of his trust that God would heal him of the cancer. The song became a hit, making it to number 2 on the Australian charts and was released on a Hillsong album. Here is an Australian news story on the tragic story.

He apologizes for the masquerade but notice, however, what is not included in his apology:



Did you catch it?

He is so sorry for how he lied to friends and family and the people in his church, but who is it that he really sinned against? Granted, he could have made his true confession before his Heavenly Father in private, but it seems to me that such since of brokenness before the Father should have made it into the interview.

What did David say about his affair with Bathsheeba (after he was outed also we must remember): "For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and have done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment." (Psalm 51:3-4).

Someone who prays a prayer like that demonstrates the reality of the faith that was hidden within them as they outwardly sinned. Believers like that can rest in the knowledge that Christ will not crush them, but will minister to them, showing them grace and restoring them to spiritual health.

In his fabulous book "The Bruised Reed," Richard Sibbes points out the actual benefits that come to the church through the failings of leaders:

Such bruising may help weaker Christians not to be much discouraged, when they see stronger ones shaken and bruised.

Mentioning Peter's denial of Christ, Sibbes writes:

The people of God cannot be without these examples. The heroic deeds of those great worthies do not comfort the church as much as their falls and bruises do.

Whether or not this leader's failings will strengthen or weaken the church remains to be seen, but a good portion of that may depend upon the sincerity of his apology and the reality of his faith.

Emerging Church Part 2

thanks to www.teampyro.blogspot.com

In part one, you read what the emergent church movement says that they are for. But behind each of their positive statements lies a protest. Being "for" something new means that they are "against" what they are seeing now. Scot McKnight says that, at its heart, the emergent movement is a protest movement.

Read what the emerging church is against, according to McKnight, here.

In that list, if you are like me, you will find much that you agree with. In fact, this is the area where I am definitely on the emerging church's side. What they are protesting against are the same things that John Piper is protesting against in his book "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals."

And the same thing that James White and Tom Ascol were protesting against in my previous post here.

One wonders how anyone could possibly be "pro" for the things that the emergents are against, but clearly there is a large contingency of pastors/churches which are. I'm afraid that a large segment of the Southern Baptist Church is under the spell of professionalism and the Kingdom of God is paying a heavy price for it.

David Wells, in his book "The Courage to Be Protestant," after describing how consumerism in the West drives our culture, describes how pastors have allowed it to drive our churches:

"Why not pitch to them? Why not compete for them? Why not bring into the church the proven techniques of penetration? Why not speak the language of the marketplace...and sell, sell, sell! Why not pitch the church to these consumers as a product, as an experience that will meet the needs they are experiencing in this type of world? Can the church fail to do so and survive? A mailer from a church in Mesa, Arizona reads: 'Is your life everything you want it to be? You hear all kinds of offers to improve your life, but do they work? God is offering you a way to make your life everything you truly want it to be.' So there it is! The difference between this offer and the others is that this one works. Here the customer can match self-perceived need with a product. And bingo! Success!

Wells then warns:

All consumers, we need to remember, are sovereign, and the consuming impulse, once it enters the church makes individual preferences the deciding factor, the driving factor in what the church becomes. These preferences become the standard by which the church is measured. Can we argue against success? I believe we can. More than that I believe we should What we have here are churches reconfigured around evangelism that abandons much of the fabric of biblical faith to succeed. They have taken a part of that faith, modified it in deference to consumer impulse and then made of that part all there is to the Christian faith. Here is a methodology for success that can succeed with very little truth; indeed its success depends on not showing much truth." (pp. 51-52).

This is proven when you find the same marketing principles used to grow Christian churches taught to Jewish and even Muslim groups to increase their numbers as Rick Warren did last year (from the Christian Post- original article here):

Rick Warren Counsels Jews on Recruiting Congregants

By Jennifer Riley

Christian Post Reporter

Mon, Dec. 17 2007 02:58 PM EST

Megachurch pastor Rick Warren attended a large Reform Jewish gathering last week to share tips on how to build a community.

Warren - who saw his church expand from seven people meeting in his house to 22,000 people worshipping in an expansive treasure island-like campus – said the key to holding onto visitors is involving them in a small group.

“We believe congregations have to grow large and small at the same time,” Warren said Thursday, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper. “We don’t really feel like people are in the congregation until they’re in small groups.”

The “Purpose-Driven” pastor spoke to thousands of Jewish leaders Thursday night at the Union for Reform Judaism’s biennial convention in San Diego.

With the holiday season in mind, Warren urged clergy to take advantage of crowded events to publicize other programs so people can get involved in the community through smaller groups.

“There are some principles that apply regardless of our faith, if it’s Jewish or Christian,” he said at the convention.

One of his principles: “Just be nice to people. Smile.”

After Warren spoke a few minutes at the podium, he sat alongside two popular Southern California rabbis for a casual talk about strengthening congregational life.

Other advice given by Warren included looking at everything from an outsider’s viewpoint, such as simplifying worship terms, making strangers feel welcome, and encouraging interaction.

“The congregation that really loves people, you have to lock the doors to keep people out,” said Warren, whose Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is scheduled to host 14 Christmas services this year with an estimated crowd of 45,000 people.

The biennial meeting of the largest Jewish denomination in North America began Dec. 12 and concluded on Sunday.

Other guests at the conference included the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

Okay, after reading that, I hope you are shaking your head in disbelief as I am.
Clearly, if the techniques work in a Jewish context or a Muslim context, then they are techniques that don't require the truth of Jesus Christ. Indeed, as Wells pointed out, they succeed all the better when the truth is not made clear.

Where do we get these ideas from? Clearly not from the Bible.

2 Corinthians 4:7-11 tells us: "We have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh."

I don't see much marketing going on there, do you?

We could go on and on over this subject, but lets suffice it to say that many of the complaints of the state of the church today that the emergents have, we would likely agree with.

The problem is not in their complaints, it is in their solutions.

More on that next time.

Christless Christianity interview with "Fun-gi" R.C. Sproul

Michael Horton interviews R.C. Sproul over the state of the church today.

Watch this. Pass it on. This is important.

Emerging Church- Part One

"Maturity: Yeah, when I was like you, I never doubted the Bible either. But I outgrew that."
thanks to teampyro.blogspot.com

This past weekend I gave a presentation at our state convention's Leadership Conference, critiquing the emergent church. Over the next several posts I'm going to share with you a somewhat abridged version of what I shared with them.

I'm going to, when possible, provide links to the original sources that I quoted during my talk. This will make it less work for me :) and more authoritative for you when you are talking to someone else and can quote "from the horses mouth" so to speak.

My prayer here is what I prayed at the conference: "God, may you be glorified in what is presented here and may You turn someone from error and towards truth. Amen."

After devoting myself to studying this topic, I feel like one of the most urgent tasks facing the church is to strongly refute this movement and to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, what they stand for- especially for our brothers and sisters who in their college years and who are being targeted by this movement.

Two books I highly recommend are: "Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck and "The Courage to Be Protestant" by David Wells.



(buy these or other books from monergism - using the links or this banner- and you get a great deal, cheap shipping, you are supporting a great ministry, you gain wisdom, and I get kick backs for leading you there to boot! Howzat for a good thing?)

----------

Okay, first, who and what is the emergent church?

I prefer to let them tell us rather than for us to define it for them. So I direct you over to the Emergent Village to read their history and what it is that they stand for.

They define "emergent" and tell a brief history here.

They list their values and practices here.

Now, granted, we must acknowledge what they say about how no one person speaks for the movement. They give a response to criticisms making this point here.

But, as DeYoung and Kluck point out:

"Fine but if seven men get together and respond to their critics in one article, they should at least admit that they not only share much common ground, but they are some of the lead influencers in the conversation."

Speaking of the word "conversation," David Wells has a humorous take on it that I posted earlier here.

Now, before you read what they have to say, you need to know that you must read their comments as if they were coming from a politician. I promise you, it is not always clear what the definition of "is" is. You will begin to see what I mean as these posts progress. But let's suffice it to say for now that the words "emerging," "dreaming," "imagining," "evolution," "trajectory" are not simply nice words to add color to their writing. There are meanings behind these words that are not readily apparent to those outside of their movement and that makes almost everything that they say slippery and dangerous.

A few quotes from their "Values and Practices" call for caution- my questions (which will be answered as we go) in italics:

• "Friendship" Because we firmly hold that living in reconciled friendship trumps traditional orthodoxies- indeed, orthodoxy requires reconciliation as a prerequisite. So, in other words "right belief" (orthodoxy) is less important than being friends. So what do you do about the "emergent Mormon"? At what point does orthodoxy matter. How far is too far?
  
• We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anabaptist. We practice "deep ecclesiology"- rather than favoring some forms of the church and critiquing and rejecting others, we see that every form of the church has both weaknesses and strengths, both liabilities and potential. "Deep ecclesiology" as opposed to what us knuckleheads practice which I suppose can only be termed superficial ecclesiology. Is it deep to accept conflicting, diametrically opposed views as both being equally valid? It may be fine to unite despite differences over the mode of baptism, but what about the definition of justification? How about the loss of salvation and what that implies about the work Christ accomplished on the cross? Again, how far is too far?
  
• To be actively and positively involved in a local congregation, while maintaining open definitions of "church" and "congregation." "Open definitions"- how do you define that? How open- and is there a limit?
  
• We identify ourselves as members of this growing, global, generative and non-exclusive frienship. We welcome others into this friendship as well. What do you mean by "generative"? What do you mean by "non-exclusive"? Do you welcome non-Christians into your fellowship as members as well?
  

Now, don't worry. If you have read this and are still wondering what the fuss is all about, stay with me, you will see in short order why I think they should be, not only avoided, but spoken out against.

But, for now, this was enough to digest.

We have seen what they say that they are "for." Next time, we'll look at what they are "against." And, as a protest movement, you will likely actually find that you agree with most of what they say. And that, of course, is their appeal.

It is not their complaints that are the problem, it is their solutions that are so off base.