Gregory: I know that pastors are often eccentric, but imo, your interim pastor is more eccentric than most. The gaffs and errors you have cited go beyond an occaisonal slip to just plain wrong, and a couple of elders need to kindly, charitably point out to him that some of his proclamations are unsupportable from scripture or good pastroal practice. The Paul witnessed to by Barnabbas story is an outright perversion of scripture. You can’t preach Bible stories from pure invention. Reasonable implication is one thing. Invention is another. I would take time to remind the deacons that the job of an interim is to bring the congregation to unity on the way to a new shepherd. This fellow is on the way to dividing the congregation. The Jezebel sermon shows a real lack of pastoral temperament and a desire to be combative and divisive over a minor matter. Hijacking that Biblical language to argue about literature is nuts and counterproductive to his calling in this instance. I would tell your elders time to trade in for another interim if a new pastor isn’t in the pipeline.
Steve/Judd/Space Cadets: I think that NASA’s moon shot was a good investment. I know the current libertarian/conservative take is to say no government spending, but I think some government spending is worth the hassle for the potential and actual returns. For me, the space quest is beyond dollars and cents, and beyond commercial interests. It is like arguing about Columbus’ voyages or the exploration of the New World. There is something important here to the human spirit and the human imagination. We need a journey into the unknown. We need it. Yeah, we can debate this in the budget books and tax policies, but calling it “flags and footprints” could only be said by someone who didn’t live through it and experience what it did to all of us in that generation. As one who was in the middle of that era, I know what Steve Mcfarland is writing about. it was magnificent and mythic. This was a humanizing, elevating quest that affected our view of ourselves and impacted the human spirit around the world. It united our world and ignited our minds and imaginations. It was worth it. Privatize it or whatever, but do it and make it the great quest our civilization needs. (Send Al-Queda on the test shots.)
Ronald: Your brand of denominationalism is what I grew up with, and I have commented on my own journey through and away from it elsewhere. I have great respect for journeys that are different from mine so its cool.
By reading my article on PK, you are aware that I am not a lemming for PK. Having said that, I find most of the internet criticism of PK to be insubstantial and inaccurate at best, and blithering idiocy at worst. It tends to come from the kind of people who find John Macarthur and John Piper heretical. (Most of these sites are people who light up a fire anytime someone befriended anyone related to psychology or counseling. It’s like playing Kevin Bacon, only using Larry Crabb as a link to Sigmund Freud and Satan.)
PK, as a parachurch, is not obligated to have the confessional standards of a local church. That is the difference between anything that is not a local church and what is a church. Its evangelical credentials do not require specific historic confession or doctrinal statements. Laundering the speakers at PK would be like laundering the speakers at a Billy Graham school of evangelism. What’s the point? It’s not a church, and anyone is free to take it or leave it. This may seem silly, but it’s like a grocery store you choose to patronize. Does Kroger need a doctrinal statement?
I believe denominationalism has many positive aspects, especially in preserving historic distinctives. On the other hand, denominations often need correctives from outside themselves. (The abolition movement, or the pro-life movement would be good examples.) PK is a reaction to the feminization of the culture and the church. Sure, its extremely generic doctrinally, and charismatics tend to float to the top of the leadership and worship ladder, but it is a viable and spiritually vital, Christ honoring, Gospel preaching movement. I find it to be much more doctrinally explicit than most churches and the vast majority of Christian publishing. I won’t even venture into how it compares doctrinally to CCM.
Where I differ the most is this: I believe I must have convictions, but I also think I have to have the humility to treat those who differ with me as my equals, and to love them as part of the body of Christ. I grew up in a church that consigned everyone who wasn’t a Southern Baptist to hell. (Even Independent Baptists. They didn’t give to the CP or use our literature.) This resulted in treating other Christians with disrespect. (More like lepers really.) For example, I was taught to fear and despise Methodists because they drank. I think conviction is fine, but that should not stop us from worshipping and working together with others.
(There is a flap in the LCMS because some pastor participated in a post 9/11 event with some liberals, New Agers and secularists. It may be silly, but on a human level, what’s the big deal? Why not take my faith in Christ and pray a prayer with Jesus’ name in it wherever I can get in the door? Missionaries can go to savages, but a pastor can’t pray with Oprah?) No compromise, but treating every other person as person whose spiritual journey is worthy of respect. I know your comments were not going down that road, but this is where I would differ.
BTW, since most Southern Baptist Churches have no confession of their own beliefs that member must affirm, on what basis do they make any criticism of other movements doctrinally?
GROUP: Just read all of Time’s current issue on the end of the world, which is primarily about LEFT BEHIND and Tim Lahaye. It is thoroughly depressing, but Time does a good job. That Lahaye is the most significant Christian of our times is profoundly sad. Here is a man who has and absolutely pessimistic worldview. I need to avoid the topic.