A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way.
|
|
| Preachin's Blog A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way. |
|
|
Friday, March 31, 2006 Inchurnational: Embracing sound theological beliefsIn examining the EC in North American ecclesial culture today there is one authentic conclusion that we must arrive at: the Established Church in North America (even the world) absolutely needs the Emerging/ent Church. A proposition such as this is risky and will certainly raise the eyebrows of the ensconced leadership of the IC, but this statement is simply too obvious as one looks at the state of the IC in North America and the world. Why does the IC need the EC? Quite frankly Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” gives us that answer in part. Another reason is that we in the IC need a check and balance…if you will permit me a pagan illustration, a yin to our yang. One of the things that I deeply respect and love about my Christian brethren in the EC is their passion for a pure and authentic church. Many reform and recalibration movements in life and in the Church have founded themselves upon such a passion and vision. There is something refreshing and renewing about hearing the thoughts and God-given visions for a reclamation of authentic spirituality from my dear friends in the EC. As I examine the EC and have conversations with many of my friends in the IC it is apparent that many of the thoughts and goals of the EC leaders are having a positive effect on leaders in the IC, forcing them to rethink Church as usual. This is good. This is healthy. If we are to embrace the spirit of the Reformation found in the phrase Always Reforming (sempre Reforma…forgive me if my Latin is a bit off) than we need the check and balance of the EC. We need these younger evangelical leaders to smack us across the face and say “Dude, that is so 1950s” or “Why do we do that again?” and “How is that bringing people into the Kingdom?” We need the petulance of the youthful passion to counter our traditional ways of doing business/church as usual. That said, if the EC is to continue to be a good check and balance to the IC it is imperative that the EC begin to critically assess the theological positions its leaders are taking. Doctrinal purity is the root of effective evangelistic efforts within any body. While the EC calls on us to be incarnational in our living (that is pursuing Christ’s mind and image as we live and breath) it also seems to be doubting the very doctrine that it names as a foundational tenet for its/our existence. Far too many leaders in the EC are not thinking outside the box theologically/doctrinally when it comes to major areas of doctrine outside of their ecclesiology. Rather it is far too obvious that the EC leaders are simply embracing remnants of theological liberalism and past heresies of the faith in order to attempt to gain a foothold with the disenfranchised (dechurched) former parishioners  out there. They are laying hold of particularly Modern, mainline theological tenets to attempt to refute the overwhelming coherent evangelical theological corpus. In their incredulity the leaders of the EC have abandoned a more progressive (as they would call it…postmodern) approach in holding doctrine only to slink back to sublime false teachings that are rooted in Cartesian Modernism.In their attempt to question the foundations of rout religiosity apparent in too many of our churches today they have claimed the ecclesial high ground in their local gatherings and now have begun to reexamine, to deconstruct, the very tenets of doctrine and theology which we live by in our gatherings. There is no reason to question the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and other such foundational doctrines for the sake of “reexamining” things. In doing so these leaders dump hot coals of conflict into the already tumultuous relationship between the hardliners in the IC and the innovators in the EC. While we can have some variances in theological and doctrinal positions there must come a point where we agree on some essentials as foundational for belief and being worthy of the moniker “Christian.” Yet some within the leadership of the EC seem content only to deconstruct every possible tenet of evangelical belief to replace it with some age old liberal/mainline position that is contrary to the teachings of God’s Word. In particular the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ has been placed under direct assault by the EC leadership as they are positioning themselves not in a new or uncharted theological camp, but rather in age old false teachings over the nature and conditions of salvation. With some leaders referring to salvation as “opt-out only” they are negating clear Scriptural teaching concerning the condemned nature of mankind from birth (John 3:16-21; Roms 3:21-26; 5:8-12; 6:20-23; Gal 3:22.) While some still suggest it is through Christ that the world has its sins atoned for, it is not through belief in Christ that one is able to enjoy in that divine gift of salvation. This is just an example of problematic doctrinal teaching within the EC leadership. If the nature and means of the central tenet of Christianity, that is salvation, is under attack and “revision” by the leadership how can the EC expect a reasonable hearing from the IC that it so desperately wants to rescue from the supposed fires of destruction. A primary issue is that in order to get the thoughts of the collective EC out on the table, many of the leadership feel an obligation to present papers and texts which deal with central matters of faith controversially so they might engender a wider reading because of the publicity (this will be addressed later on at length.) Others are suggesting that they have to ask penetrating questions of the faith of our fathers in order to get the loyal evangelicals in our pews and chairs to examine their own belief systems. Some other leaders attempt to discount their role as theological/ecclesial leaders by remarking they are not educated enough or the positions they are pushing should not engender controversy…even though they write with a high degree of authority knowing their texts are widely read and circulated. This is akin to Charles Barkley saying “I’m not a role model” knowing well and good that kids are always looking up to their hero athletes. These are hero-pastor/teachers of the EC giving instruction in doctrine and theology, sometimes in a position of arrogance and condescension for the faithful teachings of the IC, and with that role of leadership comes the role of responsibility. If the EC wishes to continue on its quest of bringing authenticity and purity of spirit to the Church at large it must first get its theological baggage in order and check it over hard. While they are clearly not content to just change the ecclesiological tenets of our faith, the leadership in the EC must endeavor to pursue sound doctrine and teaching (2 Tim 2:14-16; 4:1-5.) If any in the leadership are lacking in the academic realm for formal theological training (while that is certainly not a condition of leadership…just a rationalized ideal) let them get that training one way or another. There is a line of leaders in the IC which stretches from the altar of confrontation back through doors of discontent in this mighty chapel of ecclesial communion. All who are willing, ready, and able to soundly defeat the passion and vision of the EC as a whole if her leaders are not willing to get their theological baggage in check. Christianity at its base is theological. The life of a Christian is a delicate balance of faith and reason. With a shuddering base of belief how will the house of cards that is the EC continue to exist? If the leadership of the EC seeks only to line their pockets with the monies of controversy where will the faithful followers end up? If the motives of the leadership of the EC are just to rediscover theological error and not truly bring about a purer and more authentic church, why bother? Christ calls us to something greater, a greater belief, a greater faithfulness than to simply point out everything problem and past discarded false teachings. The Gnostic Gospels were left behind because they misrepresent Christ not because the author was blackballed. We must trust the intentions of our fathers and the faithfulness of God to maintain sound doctrine in His Church through the ages. The Established Church needs the Emerging/ent Church. We need them to be incarnational in their living and sound churchmen in their polity. We need them to go beyond the discarded tenets of old and look forward to future with hope and pure vision. If they fail…they will simply pass into the category of fad or movement and be a footnote in God’s Story of His faithfulness to the nations. posted by Preachin Jesus | 2:32 PM | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 An Evangelical Vision for the Emerging ChurchAs we head bravely into the new millennium there have been a wide variety of changes and shifts within our societies locally to globally. The advent of the information age has moved from possibility to reality allowing more interaction and connectedness than ever before. The continued polarization of the American political landscape has begun to divide our country along party lines. With the AIDS crisis in Africa looming as a more pressing threat for global humanitarian organizations, coupled with increasing politically stability throughout that (and other continents) there have been so many pressing concerns that even our venerable 24 hour news channels have not been able to keep up. For we Christian Evangelicals we have found ourselves looking past the impending Y2K threat, and prophesied global extinction (which might or might not have ushered in the Second Coming of Christ) and towards the future of a supposed post-Christian environment globally. In an attempt to answer to a supposedly post-Christian climate some Christian Evangelicals, and mainline Christians, have begun to start churches with an ear  and attitude towards answering or accommodating this climate. While many terms have abounded to describe this phenomenon, recently the term “Emerging Church” has classified the movement more formally. Of course with any new movement, whether positive, negative, or neutral in its affects/attitudes towards the Established Church there is a storm of controversy and contention around the things of that movement. A wall of conversation has descended over the entire Emerging/ent Church topic with a cacophony of voices seeking their place for understanding and being understood.It is no small truth that the Emerging/ent Church has engendered enough of a conversation over its tenets and propositions that it has created a unique sub-culture within the Church and culture. With a growing awareness of and accessibility to Emerging/ent Church gatherings more and more evangelicals are discovering this movement. With this growth many of the leaders within the Emerging/ent Church have sought out the literary market and used the electronic means to promulgate their message throughout society. Many of the leaders of the Emerging/ent Church began with simple texts and statements which were largely ignored by the mainstream evangelical press, but through the seedbed of discontented younger Christians the message began to grow. In truth the first book about the Emering/ent Church I read was Leonard Sweet’s Postmodern Pilgrims which introduced me to some of the concepts behind the changing tides of ecclesiology in North America. Now, five to ten years later, the Emerging/ent Church has their own publishing arms and have begun to produce texts which seek to better postulate their positions on the nature of the Church, the nature of society, the nature of their beliefs, and the nature of the opportunities available to Christianity. Of course the ubiquitous term of Emerging/ent Church carries with it the incredulity towards definitions. Talking with different people from different clans of the Emerging/ent Church brings out different definitions...most of which are at war with each other. Wikipedia has given some space to this ecclesial manifestation by suggesting it seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture. Moreso, I suggest the Emerging/ent Church is a collaboration of younger dechurched thinkers who seek to reconstruct the very essence of church from its supposedly sordid past into a vibrant fellowship earmarked by authenticity and vunerability. Perhaps nothing is more clear in this movement it is that most of the Emerging/ent Church folk are:
They have been heard and the evangelical arm of the Church has begun to respond. Of course I need not get into the history or analysis of the contemporary issues confronting all involved, others are doing this far better than I could hope. Rather it is my thought offer an evangelical vision for the Emerging/ent Church for the next five to ten (twenty?) years in light of the recent events. Over the next several posts I will assert that there are several key factors for the Emerging/ent Church to embrace if they ever plan on going from a simply movement or sub-culture of Christianity to a place of substantive contribution to the Church as a whole. As the Emerging/ent Church enters into a second stage of awareness it enters a time critical to its continued existence and viability. Of the particular points that I will be entering into over the next several posts:
The posts which preceed from this point are my observations after interacting with and conversing with those in the Emering/ent Church for six plus years. Also, that hereafter for my sanity's sake I will refer to the Emerging/ent Church as the EC and the Established Church as the IC. posted by Preachin Jesus | 2:32 PM | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 Atheist blogging on churchSome might have heard about an atheist, Hemant, who sold his services on eBay. Of the people who put out bids, the emergent website off-the-map.org ended up submitting the winning bid. They then enlisted this avowed atheist to go to differing churches in the Chicago area and visit them as a "Mystery Worshipper" to examine them from a truly unchurched/non-christian perspective. His blog is found right here. Interesting reading, particularly his recent visit to a smaller emerging church gathering at Via Christus. One question at the end of his blog: "I left the night trying to compare Via Christus with Willow Creek. Is one type of service more engaging than the other? Does one serve the people better? What is better: 100 churchs of 100 people? Or 1 church of 10000 people?" posted by Preachin Jesus | 7:34 AM | Friday, March 24, 2006 March Madness...and my devastated bracketI've said this before, there are two things that don't exist: 1. A perfect church 2. A perfect March Madness bracket Okay, what in world!?! (PJ realizes exclamation point, question mark, exclamation point is not proper grammar...but this is bloggy world) My bracket is shot. I did one for the staff here at the Atlantis Baptist Frat and then another for a group of  ministers I know. My one for the Frat is done, I had UNC and Gonzaga in the final four (thankfully Texas and Villanova are still alive...today.) But I'm done! There is no way I could recover! Aaaahhh!!!How in the world do people get paid to make these picks. I'm looking over a bunch of these experts picks and nobody has it right? How can you be an expert if your picks keep getting knocked off? Aaahhh!!! posted by Preachin Jesus | 10:04 AM | Thursday, March 23, 2006 Goofy StuffWell to lighten the mood a bit...here's some goofy stuff How do Pine Trees Know It's Easter? (well click and make sure your speakers are turned on) Mr. Nice Hands (yeah...you'll need speakers to appreciate this too) Michel Foucault Action Figure (for all you Emergent People) Bunny Suicides (because we all want to see bunnies die...and not kittens!) posted by Preachin Jesus | 2:49 PM | Leaving Baptist DistinctivesI, PJ, have not posted much on the International Mission Board (hereafter: IMB) and Wade Burleson because so many more of the SBC bloggers have done a far better job at addressing the issues than I could endeavor. With the reports coming in now from the recently adjourned session of the IMB, it appears that while Pastor Burleson has maintained his trustee post a far more grievous action has occurred. As the Associated Baptist Press is reporting, and backed up by other bloggers, the IMB board has taken actions to end dissent by trustees and employees. To quote Greg Warner's article "The new guidelines require trustees to "refrain from public criticism" of not only trustee policies -- like the November decisions defining a proper baptism and prohibiting use of a "private prayer language" by missionary candidates -- but all "board-approved actions." Though my current service obligations kept me from attending the Tampa Bay meeting of the IMB, I was there in spirit and prayer. Over at SBCOutpost Blog, Marty Duren has listed some one the policy revisions and additions at length. (I am indebted to my fellow SBC bloggers for their info in substantiating the issues here.) At the heart of these policy shifts are several declarations that limit the ability to either publicize current policy of the IMB or decision of that Board. Again, as the new section points out: This is simply devastating to historical Baptist distinctives which our fine convention is built upon. Had this action taken place in the late 1970s or early 1980s the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC would have never taken place. There would have been no means of communicating the doctrinal errors, or how we should properly understand some biblical passages. These are all keys to the, rightful, conservative resurgence. Outside of the historical precedent immediately found within our own Kingdom minded, God blessed convention is the Baptist distinctives which helped formulate the United States. The Baptist distinctive of (rightful) separation of church and state was bred out of an understanding of freedom of expression. It is imbedded in our fundamental doctrine of rights attatched to the Constitution of the United States of America. Our Baptist forefathers in England, the English Separatists, were condemned to death  and forced to clandestine meetings because their particular views on baptism, ecclesiology, bibliology, etc. were in direct opposition to the presiding parties of the Church of England. How many of our forefathers were hung and beaten for their opposition viewpoints we now can freely express in our pulpits and pews every week. Think of Issac Backus, the great Baptist preacher, who worked with the leading political figures of the day to ensure the right of freedom of expression to all who would be able. This not only ensured the ability of Christianity to spread widely and faithfully throughout the United States, but the ideals to spread aboard and carry out missionaries safely (in many cases) with the ideals of freedom of expression. Think of John Leland, another Baptist preacher, who too championed the cause of freedom of expression. How would they stand today if such a policy as this were to be thrust upon them?To be able to express one's affirmation is wholly human, so too it is wholly human to be able to express discontent with a policy or procedure that does nothing to aid the cause of the Kingdom. While we should endeavor not to embroil ourselves in the controversies of casual Christianity, we must also not give way to the fearfulness of freedom of expression. These recent moves by the IMB have grieved my soul dearly. I wonder how many called out young people, who with the right heart and proper convictions about their private prayer language will be turned away from God's work? How many more will suffer the slings of inability to serve because when they were a tender age they stepped into a baptismal pool in another church that thinks differently about our baptism? And what of the future decisions...will we be able to know of them. What if the representatives of our faithful churches decide that you have to be of a certain skin color to serve overseas? Or you have to preach from a particular kind of Bible? Or you have to use certain kinds of literature? Or you have to wear a tie and coat to preach? Will we know? As my brother in Christ Tim Sweatman has put it so well: Why doesn't the Board of Trustees work on creating an environment where our missionaries feel free to speak out on issues that directly affect them instead of imposing policies to shut the mouths of those trustees who would speak out about many of the concerns our missionaries have? Where might our might convention be today had such policies been in place as the framers of the resurgence met in dark back rooms to plan the strategy to renew our theological commitments? Would we be sending out so many into the field? I champion the case for a local autonomous church in many of my conversations with the nattering naysayers of evangelical Christianity. How can we be truly autonomous if each church is blind to the differing viewpoints of actions taken? May God be with us. I hope and pray that this decision will do nothing to hinder His Kingdom, and I continue to pray for and affirm those in the field of mission while I do the same for those molding that field. May our convention be strong enough to say no to these actions. May we be strong enough to say no to a loss of historical Baptist distinctives. May we be strong enough to say yes to the will of God. posted by Preachin Jesus | 1:13 PM | Wednesday, March 22, 2006 The Next Logical Step for AbortionistsA recent CBS.com news article, 'Roe v. Wade For Men' Suit Filed, shows the next logical step for supporters of abortion to take in their efforts to get their social agenda established. To quote the story: The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose. The issue here is not that men can force an abortion to take place even if the mother is opposed to such a procedure; rather it allows men a get out of jail free card for their sexual promiscuity. So might be harm in allowing this to progress? Well the obvious one is an increase in the rate of abortion for "unwanted" pregnancies (PJ doesn't believe there is a such thing as an "unwanted" pregnancy since the child has no say in the matter.) Unwed mothers who have no force of law to  require reluctant fathers to pony up for their deeds and would otherwise be faced with dire economic/social circumstances seem to have a greater door of "opportunity" for an abortion. Also this would simply add to the philandering of a greater number of sexual promiscuous men, who for other reason than fear of disease, would spread their seed far and wide. Finally, this usher in the day when a man can force a woman he has impregnated to have an abortion.The logic of movement aside, this is a poor choice if a court hears. Dereliction of fatherly duties are spinning our country out of control. We men to be men and lead as they should. posted by Preachin Jesus | 4:30 PM | Tuesday, March 14, 2006 On Satellite Campus TrendsOne of the hot new trends in (mega) church growth is to plant a new church that features a full staff of associate pastors and ministers, a fresh and vibrant worship team, connecting small groups, and a weekly message from the senior pastor of the mother church…via DVD/video-feed. These satellite campuses are sprouting up throughout the United States, and elsewhere in the world, and many have grown to their own large churches. Some meet in movie theatres, others in converted warehouses, others in office complexes, some in school, and a plethora of other locales. Pioneered by innovative churches such as Willowcreek and Northpoint these satellite locations offer an extended arm of outreach into other communities which would not usually be touched by a particular church. Of course in some cases this kind of church growth strategy can be more like franchising a brand than planting a true church. While these satellite campuses are growing and seeing many people connect with them, there are some questions that need to asked.  Is not the vision for the church that we have delivered to us in Scripture one which will unite Christians together in local, intimate gatherings? I of course have my reservations about mega-churches, particularly from the rampant consumerism that is found within many and this franchising mode of growth seems to only build on that feeding frenzy. Yet, there is much good being done in these gatherings. Through the satellite campus work churches are being planted in the midst of communities with substantive financial backing and strategic planning, virtually guaranteeing a good weekly turn out. These churches are given, usually, a strong leadership team of laity and pastoral staff. While many other church plants are not provided this kind of backing, these churches are established in a healthy situation of planned mentoring and guidance of the (traditionally) younger staff. This staff will inevitably reflect the values and heritage of the mother-church staff and will be trained accordingly. It seems to be a healthy situation to go into, security, facilities, and funds to build a viable church campus…than is still attached to the mother-church. Of course the next major issue that leaps out is, how far should one church go in reaching out with their satellite campuses. For instance say a mega church in a large city near you wanted to bring a satellite campus into your area, would that church necessarily reflect values and traditions more appealing to your area than the overriding ones of the mother-church? Who elects the leadership (of course this question suggests an elected eldership is the model to use and not an oligarchy of pastoral appointments) the satellite campus or the mother-church? Can the connected pastoral staff of the satellite campus be replace at the whim of the leadership of the mother-church? Who gets to use the weekly offering of that satellite church? Does it go into a general slush fund, or is it all redirected back into that church? Of course the final question for we good Baptists is: how much autonomy is allocated to the satellite campus for their ministry endeavors? Local church autonomy is a vital facet of Baptist polity and belief. The ecclesiological question raised by the satellite church deals directly with that matter. While, traditionally, local church autonomy has more to with denominational oversight/involvement in the local church life, the advent of the satellite campus might well extend this along a secondary line of thought. While it is rational to expect satellite campuses within a particular geography (say a city wide area encompassing some suburban developments) to follow closely with the direction and leadership of the mother-church is it then reasonable to suggest that a satellite campus hundreds of miles away should do likewise? What is the cut-off? I ask because frankly I just don’t know yet. Is it reasonable from a Baptist ecclesiological (or any church ecclesiology for that matter) standpoint to suggest that if XYZ Baptist Church located on the East coast decides to do a satellite location in San Francisco, California that there is no autonomy given to that local congregation in San Francisco? Are their offering receipts forwarded along to the mother-church? Does the local congregation and leadership have any say in how their budget is allocated and dispensed, or is all that decided by the regulatory powers at the mother-church? As Baptist, particularly Southern Baptists, we must be mindful that the heart of our convention is church planting and missions for the Kingdom of God. Without these we are bereft of our Kingdom mandate and powerless in affecting our Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth. Part of our rich heritage in these areas is to raise up like-minded, autonomous churches to accomplish this vision. How do satellite campuses fit in with this? They certainly are church plants, but it is a bit of hybrid of that idea. Yet even though a hybrid, are they any less entitled to the ecclesiology which guides us Baptists? Questions raised are important. As I contemplate this movement by many churches I also wonder that as a satellite campus becomes a stable entity, and the congregation grows closer to their pastoral staff, and they decide to allow that staff to lead them in every aspect of their worship experience and Christian development will the mother-church allow that satellite campus to become its own, independent church? At what point does the message on tape get turned off and the on-site staff get to pastor their flock? Even more pressing, can a mother-church pastor effectively shepherd a flock two hundred miles from his pulpit? These satellite campuses are terrific works of God to aid in the spread of our churches to communities where they might not otherwise be reached. Many good Christian people have and are attending services at a satellite campus. We have seen thousand reached with the Gospel and millions more potentially reached. The point of all this is not to condemn or berate the satellite movement, but to ask cogent questions of intent and desire. If we are to maintain our historical Baptist distinctives can we really see a franchising movement take place in our churches which overrides the call to local New Testament congregations led by God’s man preaching God’s Word to God’s People? Or will these satellite campuses usher in a new era of church planting where we see terrific results for the Kingdom in terms of lives changed because of the Gospel? posted by Preachin Jesus | 11:34 AM | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 North American Mission Board articleOkay sooo...maybe I do care about some stuff in the SBC. Well in case you haven't read North America: Hanging in the Balance, an analysis from the Christian Index (Georgia Baptist's state newspaper) than you probably need to click on the previous link and read it first. Big issues here, primarily because many people have suspected some of this for some time now. Well, to be honest I'm not sure what to make of this article. I know that there are those within the convention hierarchy that would really like it for we mere  underlings to ignore it, doubt it, and defame it...but too much of it makes sense. Do I think that this is partly tabloid journalism? I don't know. Were attempts made to reconcile the issues privately then publicly? This isn't church, but it deals with an agency of the Church. Was this article a last course to bring up private concerns that were a) ignored, b) spurned, c) redressed, d) all of the above? I don't know. From that aspect if the article truly is "tabloid journalism" than that is too bad. Yet, I must wonder, having dealt with people in the established hierarchy of the convention, if there was an attempt to ask probing questions, and that attempt drew undue threats and rebukes. Well here we are today, we can't take it back, we can't ignore it, we can't pretend that this massive, hairy elephant isn't in the room staring at us all.Is NAMB effective? Is their corruption at their HQ? These are the central questions behind this article. The research behind the article is credible, and it simply is the writers using stats given out by the agency to add credibility to their claims. In looking at the effectiveness I do see NAMB being effective at confronting our culture with tools for reaching the lost. I see many church plants being aided by their support. (One of the major changes in the Nehemiah Project that freed up church planters to be bi-vocational was great.) I see many friends being placed as missionaries with NAMB. What aid agency sent more people into lands ravaged by Hurricane Katrina? Everywhere you look in those places hardest hit, you see a NAMB volunteer. From effectiveness I must say that they are being effective. Yet from my position (perhaps one of sheer incredulity) after reading article, and seeing/hearing the responses from fellow ministers who have read this article, I am left with one simple belief that reform must occur at some level of the organization. Yet reform is not a hallmark of ineffectiveness (thank you Brother Martin Luther) it is simply a reflection of troubled ways of doing things. The biggest bombshell, imho, for this article is the conflict of interest with InovaOne. This relationship must be resolved and, if found to be in error, terminated. It is a sad thing to hear of friends who have lost their jobs and been downsized so a personal friend of an executive can get rich off the outsourcing he suggested. We in the evangelical church have failed together in one area more than any other. In allowing the slick consumerism to march boldly into our churches we have robbed the message of Christ of its true efficacy to convict and power to heal anyone. While we need smart solutions for a lost and dying world we need them to uphold the nature and purity of the Church. How many times have I seen someone shamelessly self-promoting their latest read or workbook or pointless knick-knack at a cost which more than doubles the creation cost. We have appropriated the heresy of indulgences and turned it into a palatable capitalistic solution. It saddens me that this continues on in our churches today.  The way we share our faith and act in our society must change because our society has already changed. It is not the mere suggestion of change anymore, it is the acknowledgement that they have changed. We cannot expect to ever see a campaign like "A Million More in '54" ever catch on like wildfire, so long as our culture exists as it does today. We cannot live in the past accomplishments of our brave forefathers in the SBC but must press forward to attempt greater, bolder steps of faithfulness and fruitfulness if we ever want to stem the tide of division and decay within our churches. I've been to the NAMB HQ. There are good people that work there. Within that building is more optimism and promise for a brighter church tomorrow than anywhere else I've visited. It is a denominational agency, and yes there are people hiding out from God's call there...but there are also people doing God's work there. They have smart solutions and deep care for the lost and dying world at their doorstep. As a younger evangelical minister I must wonder aloud at how this will affect us in the long run. I've heard a major leader in the SBC remark that the best thing for the NAMB is to sell off the building, invest the proceeds from the sale into actual church/Kingdom building activities, and start from scratch. While I don't take as drastic a stance, I do believe that some sort of repair must come off of this article. I am committed to continuing to support our local missionaries, Cooperative Program, and will continue to give to Annie Armstrong. I do however raise my eyebrows in contemplation of a veritable Pandora’s Box of issues which will be unearthed within our convention. Do I know what to do with this article? No. I can only support, pray, and encourage those involved. posted by Preachin Jesus | 12:05 PM | Monday, March 06, 2006 Quik linksfunny stuff here... Dog walks on two legs  Brokeback to the Future...I'm not endorsing or condoning Brokeback Mountain in anyway, but this is too funny Prison Bans Magic Books...seems to be the logical conclusion 75 yr-old Grandma arrested for robbing bank Pope has an iPod...wonder if he listens to U2 or Michael W. Smith? posted by Preachin Jesus | 7:24 PM | MacArthur on "Plexiglass Preaching"Here's a link to a great article by Dr. John MacArthur entitled Fifteen Evil Consequences of Plexiglas Preaching. I think he's onto something here. Too many churches, seeker, emergent, evangelical, mainline, etc. are drifting into the dangerous realm of offering coffee table talks over profound, robust exposition. great stuff here... posted by Preachin Jesus | 11:42 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
Read my Profile
