Michael K Rose: For your friend:

First of all, you are clearly angry. Ask yourself why. It’s probably because you have listened to these Christless, Gospelless sermons and thought, “This can’t be right. This is worse than an hour of Oprah.”

Second, I have already responded on this “Go see Joel” line. I don’t have to go see people who haven’t offended me in a personal relationship. Did David need to seek reconciliation with Goliath? Did David need to visit the Philistines and try to work it out first? Did Paul need to go see Nero before pointing out he was the anti-Christ? Osteen hasn’t offended me personally. Can I write about Michael Jackson? Eminem? Kobe Bryant? Or do I need to go see them about how they are bad examples for my kids? That is not what Matthew 18 is about.

Finally, and because you asked for it, here’s the response you didn’t want to get to your claim that hundreds, even thousands of conversions mean the Mormons are righ…..uh, means Osteen is right. (From a longer essay, this section dealing with reasons why evangelicals think it is wrong to criticize preachers.)

4. God can use anything to save people, so we shouldn’t criticize what God can use. Any discussion of criticism in the body of Christ eventually will get to some anecdotal story of God’s use of whatever is under discussion for the salvation of a person, thereby rendering criticism inappropriate. “If one soul was saved…..” The ultimate stamp of God’s approval is His choice to use something as the instrument of bringing a person to faith in Christ. After that is established, we can quit thinking and starting saying amen.

My generic letter, for instance, referred to music that was now creating interest in church on the part of a formerly uninterested young man. If the critic has his/her way, such music wouldn’t be around, and this man wouldn’t be saved. Right?

Of course, this isn’t the case at all. Criticism should never claim to see into the sovereignty of God, because none of us can, and if we could, God would do something different just to play with our minds. What God chooses to use in any way for His purposes is utterly beyond our ability to predict. In fact, God has shown that He delights in bringing people to faith using what we might find foolish or unsophisticated. Men like Spurgeon, for instance, were often influenced and converted by people whose theology was crude, errant and incomplete. God uses bad books, bad sermons and bad preachers all the time. Just ask anyone who thinks I’ve said or written anything good.

I assume that even as Jesus criticized the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, there was evangelism going on, and some of the converts were solid. Did that nullify the criticism of those churches?

It’s with churches that we have the most problems. The entire church growth/Willow Creek/Purpose Driven/Emergent Church phenomenon has put a lot on the table to be evaluated. These churches are numerically prospering, and that numerical prosperity convinces many Christians that any criticism is inappropriate and diabolical. Yet, it is the message and methods of these churches that most need our scrutiny, precisely because their numerical success can obscure serious problems of Biblical faithfulness, content, compromise and theology. These are uncomfortable questions, but they must be asked, and the megas and the smart guys don’t get a pass.

For example, if the largest church in the country says, “No Cross, No Sin, not here!” are we to assume that their numerical success ends the conversation? Or is there a role for the critic in pointing out that a crowd of 25,000 gathered to NOT HEAR the Gospel isn’t really a good thing? Are the ideas in these various movements going to be evaluated, or simply tested by their results? Some of the worst ideas in human history were numerically successful. I’m sure I don’t need to elaborate.

Many of my readers will recognize the name of Mike Warnke. Warnke was, at one time, one of the top Christian entertainers and speakers in America; filling stadiums, selling thousands of albums and winning awards and acclaim. Warnke managed the unique role of the first broadly successful evangelical comedian of the “Jesus movement” generation, while at the same time being a successful minister in Charismatic circles based on his best-selling autobiography, The Satan Seller. In that book, Warnke told of his conversion from years as a Satanic high priest and drug lord. From this testimony, Warnke built a ministry that led thousands to faith in Christ and was poised to go to even higher levels of secular prominence.

I heard Warnke many times. He was a breath of fresh air, with his irreverent attitude, story-telling wit and heart-felt messages. There was only one problem. Mike Warnke was a fraud, a liar and a thief. Two writers at Cornerstone magazine, one of the few evangelical Christian publications with any real consistent spine when it comes to tough reporting, “outed” Warnke as a serial liar, fraud and bigamist. Warnke squirmed on the hook, but the Cornerstone crew landed him. Warnke’s ministry was virtually destroyed. (Oh don’t worry, he’s still in business. It’s not that easy.)

Why do I use Warnke as an illustration? Because thousands of evangelicals pelted Cornerstone with hate mail and whine mail premised on the theme of this discussion: So many were saved under Warnke’s ministry, how could anyone doubt that God was using him to spread the Gospel? In other words, Warnke’s ability to share the Gospel, which he did well, rendered his fraudulent lifestyle and lying autobiography as insignificant, at least to thousands of his fans.

In fact, this familiar line often came to Warnke’s rescue: How many souls has “Cornerstone” won to Christ? (Actually, quite a few, but I digress.) If you haven’t won as many people as Warnke, you have no right to criticize, said the defenders. Tune in next week for “Yeah, well I DOUBLE DOG dare you!” or “I put a curse on you!”

This just stinks.

Whoever gets me for BHT Christmas this year, here is the place to go.

I applaud Michael for his mission to expose Joel Osteen. Keep it up brother. The next round of root beer is on me.

Much has been said in the comments of the article you wrote but I want to get my 2 cents in. The media and this country should love Osteen. It is �7th heaven� Christianity. Maybe the next Hollywood series could be �touched by an Osteen�. He could have T.D. Jakes be an angle that guides and directs him. I know I digress.

I keep trying to imagine what Joel Osteen�s message would sound like to Christians in south Sudan. Think positive thoughts and your village will not be burned down. (on a side note the UN declared today there has been no genocide taking place there. I have not cussed in a while but bull%^$*)

I have no pull yet. I am but a lowly youth minister. Whenever it comes up I try to share my thoughts and feelings on people like Osteen. I had a wise mentor who told me I need to be known for what I am for not what I am against but it is so hard when faced with such poop.

Why is there no alternative to TBN and Osteen? I know Dr. James Kennedy comes on nationally and there are a couple of others but for the large part good solid evangelical preaching is nonexistent on television. I am not sure that is where it should be but the good godly folks in my church turn to this stuff to watch because that is there only real choice.

We live in Disneyland and the faith in this country is just as plastic and fake. The Castle looks real but really it�s just hollow. Osteen is charismatic and people have not been grounded enough in their faith to see how shallow his messages are. Sometimes I wish I believed in a pre tribulation rapture.

Timothy Striplin writes S.M. Hutchens on the continuing contemporary worship discussion. Great letter. In fact, let me say that he hits it out of the park, in my opinion, because he agrees with me. Music is fast coming alongside shenanigans at the altar as “sacramental” in evangelicalism.

A wonderful Osteen blog post on Lakewood’s version of communion.

I am doing a series on the hard sayings of Jesus at the OBI chapel. Challenging and enjoyable for me. The serious Christians, and many of the staff, enjoy the messages, and I work hard to make them creative. Today I did John 6- “Eat my flesh, drink my blood”- since John 6:60 is the only place that the term “hard saying” is used. And it is a hard saying. Jesus takes us from the feeding of the 5,000, to the Bread of Life (after refusing to be drafted as King) to this grossly shocking image of cannibalism. No wonder everyone was mumbling, “What is wrong with this guy?”

It really helps me to remember that Jesus is all about “offending” us out of any mindset that he is here to do miracles for us, and is always driving us toward a point that Christ is all and Christ is everything. Where everything is dung and Christ is the only food that satisfies. This is a God who doesn’t need to be liked. When you are asking for more bread he is thinking up ways to drive you to the wall. It is no wonder the disciples were offended. It is offensive, and it is the only hope for the world. To feed and drink from Christ is the great picture of saving faith that is enacted in communion. The drama comes to the point of “Will I eat the body and blood, given for me? Will I triust? Will I surrender to what God is for me in Christ instead of insist what he must be?”

Obviously, as we think about Osteen and the abandonment of the Gospel at the highest levels of evangelicalism, this passage is a powerful reminder of the agenda of Jesus. “Your Best Life Now?” How about, the body and blood of Jesus is the only Life for the world?

Just a quick off-topic note: (Come to think of it, aren’t most posts here off-topic in one way or another?) Just like last year, Pepsi products will be having iTunes codes under one in three caps. Just like last year, I encourage anybody that doesn’t use iTunes to instead send me the codes. Unlike last year, I suspect that everybody is planning to use the codes themselves, but it can’t hurt to ask, right?

I’m at p w i n n s k i ampersand g m a i l period c o m. And thanks!

Joell and his wife and kids stopped by Golden yesterday and my wife and I enjoyed tea with them and our mutual friends Kurt and Garcey Mirus at Kurt and Garcey’s wonderful Creekside Retreat B&B. Joell was their pastor in Kitimat and I now have that privilege. Joell and I discussed some of the issues that have come up on the BHT, in particular the fact that neither of us has ever even heard of Joel Osteen until a couple weeks ago (there are advantages to living in the bush!) and, indeed, we’re not sure how to pronounce his last name correctly (does it rhyme with “canteen” or does it sound like “Austin”?). Our uninitiated wives and friends looked at us as if we were mad.

On the way to meet them my wife told me (with JN in her voice, of course) that she was glad to be with me in case my “internet friend” turned out to be some homicidal maniac. No such worries. Joell and Michelle are a lovely couple looking forward to a new ministry in Swift Current, SK. Nice kids too – all looking forward to watching TLOR – RoK on the laptop on the long drive to Calgary. God bless you guys and thanks for the visit.

[Moderator Note: I know several of us have received this, and it will be all over the web, so I am going to allow Kent to make the post, even though I am not sure Rob intended it for wide distribution, and the characterization of “Reformed people” is still a general swat at thousands of people who have nothing to do with the difficulties of this business. I also would point out that in my own last post on this situation, I pointed out that it is the same behavior by the CURRENT management of DR- using the F-word simply to offend and belittle- that has caused me to cease doing business. Since we have discussed DR on here in the past, it is part of our discussion. If anyone at Christian Counter Culture doesn’t want this letter on the web, write me at michael@internetmonk.com. I love Rob, and I pray God gives him peace and healing.]

In extended entry is an email from Rob at Christian Counterculture/Discerning Reader… More »« Less

This is a fascinating topic to me (bourgeouis of me, isn’t it?). I can’t speak to ecclesiology since I have a hard time disentangling church from denomination, but the way I understand its relation to salvation is this:
1. Before we are regenerated, we are already in a community, the community of Adam. We are (individually and corporately) in-Adam.
2. From outside this community comes the Law. The Law pronounces judgment on the community of Adam. The effect of this on the one who hears the pronouncement is awareness of one’s radically individual responsibility for one’s own sin. I learn that it is my sin. I am isolated.
3. Whilst in this state of being both in a community yet radically isolated comes the Gospel. Christ addresses each of us as individuals (the Gospels record over and over Jesus as saying “your faith” has made you well—this is radically personal).
4. Our individual response to the grace of God by faith is for the sake of Christ alone.
5. The same Holy Spirit which enables our faith response has, by virtue of regenerating us, already placed us in a new community, the community of redeemed sinners. We are in-Christ. But now, this community, this being a member of Christ’s body, restores the social, communal life to its rightful priority. By nature, we are not isolated any more. This is how I read the apostolic writings.
6. However, being sinners, we do experience isolation time and time again. Nevertheless, this isolation is not radical, it occurs within the context of the church and the church serves a restorative, redemptive mission to its members (through proper worship, for example).
Helpful? No?

Thanks, Jesse, the baptism went very well indeed, and my kids are excited to be baptized. I was a bit worried about a couple of known Baptists who attend, but I shouldn’t have been. Richard Campeau was right—Bill Lovell (my pastor) is gifted. At the risk of him finding this page sometime, I’ll say this: I’ve heard better teachers than Bill, but I’ve never seen a better pastor. He managed to get kids who had been nervous leading up to the service to cheerfully participate in getting their heads soaked (with only one, “Ack! There’s water in my eye!”), managed to explain it in a way that made Baptists perfectly happy, and topped it off by later speaking about Sanctity Of Life Sunday in such a way that an ardently pro-choice Democrat led a prayer for Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center (an organization devoted to providing alternatives to abortion). Simply amazing.

In retrospect, I suppose I shouldn’t have worried about the Baptists. If they’re attending an Episcopal church in addition to their own, they’re already out of the mainstream for Baptists. {:)}

Michael, don’t let Jesse know but I’m kinda hopin’ that he’s going to do the Mars Hill A29 thing and make a deal with his folks to stay local. I’ll know more after Feb 11. Our living room is available.

We do engage others in living rooms already…and there are lots of interleaving factors that contribute to slow growth and difficulty in getting something started. This area is over-churched, someone told me once we are in the Guinness Book for most churches per capita, but I don’t know if that’s true. There are a lot of “family churches”, small Lutheran fellowships that are sparsely filled by one family. The Lutheran Brethern Synodic offices and Seminary can just about be hit with a well-thrown rock from where I park my car at work. There are dozens of young men wandering about looking for pulpits.

In all of this mix there are two Presbyterian Churches that I know of, a couple of Baptist churches, two Charisimatic, one Episcopal, a spattering of Catholic and the rest are various flavors of Lutheran.

There’s a lot of choice, and in a way very little. Another overriding factor is that I’m married so I’m not just me…my wife has her process too. Right now we prefer small group meetings in homes, I’d like to migrate to something else, but migrations take time.

Sword and Spirit. Excellent site. Thanks to Relapsed Kathy.

Let me tell you, when you get into this kind of a squall, you cannot but be overwhelmed with the number of evangelicals who say “What’s the problem?” If you don’t believe we have gone totally pomo, this will convince you.

JS/Alex: Here’s one of my thoughts on your “the church is salvation” idea. (Which I think, as one construction of the Gospel, is OK. But it can’t be the only one.) In the New Testament, faith is overwhelmingly individual, not corporate. Rich Mullins can sing that the faith of the community sustains him when his falters, and I believe and experience that. But the massive emphasis of the New Testament is on individuals placing their personal faith in Jesus, and then relating to and with the community. I don’t think this is the “relationship with Jesus” gnosticism that evangelicals have made it, but it seems to be the intersection point of God and human experience. Abraham is the model, and there is no community. The Old Testament has a communal faith emphasis, and you can find it in places like Revelation 2-3, but when we read the “Vine and the Branches” are you saying Jesus is talking about the Church? I can’t see it.

Kent: Is no one starting a church in their living room in your area, where you can get in on the ground floor and shape things as they develop?

Someone over at IM- in a non-Osteen thread- mentioned that Osteen is evidence of the feminization of the church, and the crisis of masculinity. (I thought Rick Warren’s Fruit shirts were the crisis of masculinity. Oh well.)

I agree, at least on the level of experience. I associate approval of Osteen with a certain kind of church-going middle aged woman who imagines the pastor as the “ideal son:” cute, swarmy, humble, friendly, well dressed with a Stepford Wife telling him what to do. How many Southern Baptist women have their husbands watching Osteen just because “I like that young man. He’s so nice?” I don’t want to think about it.

Same with General Joyce Meyer. Here’s every middle aged Church lady’s fantasy of what you really want to be: In charge. Dominant, yet feminine. Barking orders to compliant, but cowering men. Confidently wearing your jewelry and designer dresses and not apologizing to anyone. Telling your husband exactly how you are going to be submissive and he is going to lead. (*Devo plays in background: “Crack that whip,,,,”*)

The Feminization of the church. It’s the real deal, and it’s a big deal. In that sense, I thank God for Beth Moore- so far- who is kindof Joyce Meyer lite with all the doctrinal stuff lined up correctly. Let’s ship her off for a year at Piper’s Church. Seven Point Shi’ite Calvinist Women- that’s what we need more of in this world.

Where is the John Eldredge Channel?

I’m going to be rerunning some Internet Monk pieces, and here is one of them: Those Know Nothing Evangelicals:Why High Profile Evangelicals Want To Be Doctrinally Invisible. In it, there is a great Spurgeon quote. Way to start the day.

We hear on all sides great outcries against creeds. Are these clamours justifiable? It seems to me that when properly analysed most of the protests are not against creeds, but against truth, for every man who believes anything must have a creed, whether he write it down and print it or no; or if there be a man who believes nothing, or anything, or everything by turns, he is not a fit man to be set up as a model. Attacks are often made against creeds because they are a short, handy form by which the Christian mind gives expression to its belief, and those who hate creeds do so because they find them to be weapons as inconvenient, as bayonets in the hands of British soldiers have been to our enemies. They are weapons so destructive to theology that it protests against them. For this reason let us be slow to part with them. Let us lay hold of God’s truth with iron grip, and never let it go. After all, there is a Protestantism still worth contending for; there is a Calvinism still worth proclaiming, and a gospel worth dying for. There is a Christianity distinctive and distinguished from Ritualism, Rationalism, and Legalism, and let us make it known that we believe in it. Up with your banners, soldiers of the cross! This is not the time to be frightened by the cries against conscientious convictions, which are nowadays nicknamed sectarianism and bigotry. Believe in your hearts what you profess to believe; proclaim openly and zealously what you know to be the truth. Be not ashamed to say such-and-such things are true, and let men draw the inference that the opposite is false. Whatever the doctrines of the gospel may be to the rest of mankind, let them be your glory and boast. Display your banners, and let those banners be such as the church of old carried. Unfurl the old primitive standard, the all-victorious standard of the cross of Christ. In very deed and truth�in hoc signo vinces�the atonement is the conquering truth. Let others believe as they may, or deny as they will, for you the truth as it is in Jesus is the one thing that has won your heart and made you a soldier of the cross.

Time magazine gives the rundown of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America. Joel Osteen doesn’t make the list.

It will probably not surprise many who comes in at number one. Also along with a whole slew of folk I never heard of are Chuck Colson and James Dobson representing the Religious Right, Bill Hybels representing the baby-boomers, TD Jakes and Joyce Meyer for the Pentecostals, Tim and Beverley LaHaye pitching for the dispensationalists, Mark Noll doing evangelical scholars proud, and JI Packer on the Reformed side. There’s also the obligatory nod to Billy Graham, and the emerging folk will be pleased to see Brian McLaren in there. Catholic Richard John Neuhaus is a curious choice for a list of evangelicals.

Hat-tip to Dave Paisley of Disaster Area.

“I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’, not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks’.”

Have at thee, Mr. Osteen! Feed His sheep, or don’t call yourself a shepherd!

BTW, if anybody knows where that quote comes from, I’d be much appreciative. I know it’s C.S. Lewis, but I don’t know where.

In thinking more about Joel Osteen, and keeping in mind I’ve only listened to one of his sermons all the way through (frankly, I found the others so vapid and empty I couldn’t sit through them), and looking at some of the resources you (iMonk) linked, it seems to me that JO is where the streams of positive thinking (Peale, Schuller) and word/faith (Copeland, etc.) explicitly converge. I saw much of the “positive thinking” message in the word/faith movement years ago, around the time I became a strong anti-word/faith person. My word/faith buddies denied it, but I saw the connection. With JO, the connection becomes clear.

I can’t disagree with anything you said, Michael (well, we’ll see if he becomes the leading voice for “evangelicalism” or not). The word/faith movement itself is basically taken from E.W. Kenyon’s teachings (in fact, Kenneth Hagin Sr. lifted much of his writings word-for-word from Kenyon), and Kenyon was heavily influenced by “New Thought” around the turn of the century, basically a forerunner of Marianne Williamson and her ilk.

Maybe because I find JO’s preaching bland and predictable I have underestimated his influence. It’s hard for me to believe that he’s smart enough to pull off what he’s pulling off. In a sense, he is standing alone apart from his dad’s word/faith cronies (you don’t see him popping up on Copeland’s program or as part of word/faith conventions or campmeetings, instead he’s going out on his own with his “An Evening with Joel Osteen” meetings). I’m starting to wonder if he got the whole Tony Robbins series , because he seems like Tony’s kind of guy.

It’s late. Goodnight!!

People who come onto a discussion to say “Why are you discussing this? You should be ________________ (preaching, praying, helping the poor, etc)” drive me COMPLETELY INSANE!!! Argggh!!

1. They are doing the SAME THING I AM DOING!!!!!! breaking glass
2. How do they know I am not ______________ (Fill in the blank) more than they are?
3. Why should I take scripture seriously when it says _______________, but ignore it when it says _______________ (discern, warn, think, etc.)

Is there a name for this? It’s absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.

I say, “Bloggers, Talk hard.”

Finished a post, and then we had one of our third world power failures. So let’s try again.

Tom raises the issue of what kind of false teacher is Osteen? Tom, between living in the heresy capital of the world and going to an uber-liberal seminary, I am grateful you are sane at all. But he is a bona fide false teacher of a first class false Gospel. Listen carefully to him, and you don’t see Christianity MINUS things. You hear POSTIVE THINKING (Mind cults stuff) and a lot of rather NEW AGEish jargon, PLUS some Christian window dressing and a kickin band. He’s The Purpose Driven Oprah.

You know who he really reminds me of? Marrianne Williamson and the whole “Course in Miracles” crew. (And guess where she lives? Twilight Zone Theme) Listen to that guy with all the “Conversations with God” books and ask yourself how far would either those people or Osteen have to walk to be saying the same thing?

In fact, in the FaithfulReader.com interview, did you notice this?

FR: What book are you currently reading?

JO: I don’t have one in particular. I read my Bible everyday and I have a whole group of study books, but I don’t have one in particular.

FR: And who inspires you?

JO: I don’t think one person does. I don’t really want to mention names. I don’t know one person.

What if Joel’s non-answer is because he is reading New Age books? Williamson, etc. Interesting thought isn’t it? Joel ditched his dad’s Word-Faith theology in his preaching and took out after his current emphasis quite suddenly. Maybe there are some influences on Osteen, that he doesn’t want to admit.

False Teacher. Major League. On Purpose. He sounds vapid. He’s not. He knows what he is doing.

Was I wrong to say he will be “the” leading voice/face rather than “a” leading voice/face? Maybe, but here’s my logic.

a. Is going to build something with that Compaq center that will wow the world. I have read the whole dream and it is gargantuan. Nothing like it anywhere. Not Falwell, Robertson…nothing. Check out what he is going to do. The guy will be the mayor of Houston.

b. Plans to have 100,000 at Lakewood eventually. I believe he will do it within 15 years. And half of them won’t have any relation to Christianity. He may morph into some kind of thing we have never seen. Tony Robbins meets Billy Graham.

c. The mainstream Christian publishers will come to him for money, business and endorsements. He will be the big dog. Yeah, there will be a lot of criticism, but ask how they got Lucado to endorse that book? I’ll tell you how…it is all connected to selling lots of other people’s books. You will soon see him with all kinds of evangelicals, who – like a surprising number of blogs I’ve read this weekend- will just see him as a diluted evangelical. If he is an evangelical, then what does that mean? You have “church” on your sign? You wave your Bible around? He’s not one of us. He’s using us, and believe me EVANGELICALS WILL USE HIM.

Prediction: Pope Rick will, at some point, appear with him, endorse him or otherwise show acceptance. Count on it.

Our only hope is that Ken Copeland and Richard Roberts get Benny Hinn to put the hit on him with Paul Crouch’s Holy Spitit Machine guns. The Gospel Gangstas!!

I listened to Lee Toms, who studied under McGee, and Toms spoke of the power of the pulpit. He commented several times, while serving as our interum pastor, how when one has the attention of an auidence the power can be consuming. Only once to my knowledge did Toms use that position to his favor. He apologized a week later, almost in tears.

When one has a captive auidence, be it a eleven or 30,000 , it’s power can be exploited. I have seen pastors, teachers and students who have gone “whacky” simply becuase they have an auidence. The power of influence grows and it can be consuming. People are listening, waiting to be told what to do.

Kent, btw, with Capon’s quote; I don’t know if I want to scream or clap. Almost as bad as saying “Who needs a car when you can drive?”

I wrote very little on Osteen. I’ll say more about him, indirectly. More »« Less

Just a few comments and comments about comments about JO:

1. Is he a false teacher? I’m not so sure that his teaching is as “false” as it is empty of a true Gospel message. The fact is, with a positive attitude things do generally go better for a person than if he or she has a negative attitude. What makes the difference is the CONTEXT in which JO’s message is preached. If JO billed himself as a motivational speaker and traveled around the country like, say, Zig Ziglar, he could be shunted off into the self-help subculture and pretty much ignored. There was actually more out-and-out false teaching from his father John Osteen, who was a died-in-the-wool Word/Faith preacher in cahoots with Kenneth Copeland and that bunch. He’s the one who started the “This is my Bible…” mantra, and Joel kept it. If there weren’t thousands flocking to hear him every Sunday as their sole source of teaching, he would not be as dangerous. I’ve only listened to one of his sermons all the way through, and, to be honest, there was nothing he said I actually disagreed with. The problem is the context. In church, the Gospel should be preached, and not a self-help message with salvation tacked onto the end.

2. Will JO become the leading spokesperson for evangelical Christianity? I’m not a prophet, but I really don’t think so. Just pastoring the largest church in America and having a half hour on TV every week and a bestselling book doesn’t necessarily put you in that position any more than Robert Schuller is in the position of being the leading spokesperson for “mainline/liberal” Christianity. Who is the leading spokesperson now? Billy Graham? Maybe in the past, but I don’t think Billy ever considered himself in that role. James Dobson? If he is, he’s not going to give up that role easily. Rick Warren? He probably has the most influence right now due to “40 Days of Purpose” program that has infiltrated churches in virtually every community. The truth is that evangelicalism (of which I’m increasingly finding myself no longer a participant, but that’s a different story) is so vast and varied that I don’t think there is one major spokesperson. The very fact that you can argue about who is that spokesperson now means that there is not one evangelical “pope.” And an official body like NAE is never going to take JO seriously except to eventually denounce him because of the very things that have been discussed on this blog.

3. Well, I don’t have a third point. It just seems that, once you start numbering things, you should have at least three items.

All of my thoughts on ecclesiology are inchoate and half-formed, so if you don’t like what I’m saying you can just assume that I’m on drugs. Evil papist drugs.

Here’s where it’s at: When someone becomes a Christian, what happens? There’s two basic options: (1) They get a “personal relationship with Jesus”. (2) They become a part of the People of God, aka the Church. Evangelicals like (1), while I’m leaning towards (2). This fundamentally affects how we feel towards the church: in evangelicalism Christianity is about you and God in a buddy cop film, and the church is a fan club. But I’m starting to think that Christianity should be you and the Church trying to be the People of God, headed up by Christ and living out the Kingdom of God here on earth. If you’re not connected to the Body, you’re not connected to the Head of the Body.

Nonetheless, I’m not an RC because I’m not buying any one institution’s claims to be the sole manifestation of the Body. And really, you know who’s been putting these ideas in my head? Leithard and NT Wright. Who knew that the Reformed were so good at making people Catholic?

I don’t mean to say that people who aren’t members in some local congregation aren’t Christians. I don’t want to lose my invitation over to the Runge’s, after all. What I mean is that we aren’t Christians by virtue of having a private, individual relationship with God, but by virtue of being part of the Body of Christ, in all of its splits and imperfections.

PS: Congrats to Phillip and his children!

The Osteen Outing Blogsplosion rolls on! And we haven’t hit Monday yet!

Here’s one of the best posts so far, from the Crusty Curmudgeon (quite a name!)

If you are a fellow or a reader, and you could forward the original IM “Outing Osteen” post to pastors, friends and bloggers in your world, we can make an impact.

My visitors returned at MPC! It was a great day.

The last four paragraphs have been about theology – an enterprise that, despite the oftentimes homicidal urgency Christians attach to it, has yet to save anybody.—Robert Farrar Capon

Michael: Osteen definitely isn’t in the category of a brother who has offended you, but rather is (in my opinion) a false teacher. Paul didn’t have many kind words for false teachers, and the only responsibility you have is to highlight his false teaching. Or, in this case, the complete lack of anything resembling Christianity in his so-called preaching.

I wonder how often Osteen has baptisms in his church? My last church did them less and less often as they got larger. For practical reasons, it was claimed, though they managed to handle them very efficiently even with large crowds when I first started attending. Given that baptism is a pretty strong command and the heaviest pattern we can see in N.T. Christianity (a stronger example than the Lord’s Supper, in fact), it seems that baptism should be considered something of a hallmark of orthodoxy, no?

P.S. My kids—all three—are going to be baptized tonight, in roughly four hours.

Tom: Because freedom (in this case, the freedom of democracy) is antithetical to all that O represents. Z (who does have connections to O, and is part of AQ) made it clear that freedom (again, in the form of democracy) is his enemy, and the people of Iraq responded by risking their lives to drink from the fountain of freedom.

O and Z can claim that they represent Muslims all day long, but long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote tell a different story. The tide is shifting and the table is turned.

Think about it: For how many years have O and his followers and fellow travelers been railing against us? And how much impact has it had on the people lined up to vote? Thanks to Al Jazeera, the whole world now knows what everyday Iraqis think of O and Z and the rest of the so-called leaders of Islam, and it’s roughly what I think of them, too.

How is the Iraqi election the end of Bin Laden when it is fairly common knowledge that Osama had no connections with Iraq?

For this, 1500 Americans have died. For this, we pledge our honor. For this, we offer our prayers. For this, me boys, we hope and hope and hope….and offer our sons and daughters that tyranny might end.

I cannot look at these pictures without tears. God bless the people of Iraq.

If you don’t think we are the good guys in this story, I feel pity for you.

(Look at the picture of the 80 year old man being carried to the polls First photo essay in the list.)

In response to a letter I received this morning: More »« Less

Alex, first off, thanks for translating it so that I can take a whack at explaining how I think.

Second, you already explained it. When “membership” (in the Pauline spirit) becomes something “over and above” salvation, it’s “whacked”. Membership in the body is an axiomatic result of salvation…it’s where you are positionally as a result of God’s saving grace.

How you participate is another issue. And I believe that someone that doesn’t participate at some level will ultimately face some serious sanctificative issues.

Thank you, that helped me work a couple more things through.

Finally, I’m not sure whom the Church Father(s) you quoted are, but I’d be interested in some context regarding that statement.

1. “Member” of the organic body is a Pauline metaphor.

“Member” when used in the spirit of the Pauline metaphor sounds wonderful to me, I’m actually so accustomed to it being used outside of that spirit that I prefer “belong” because of the sense of “connected-ness” that it breathes into the concept. I frankly didn’t think of the term “member” that way. Thanks, that helps.

2. Ecclesia indicates a group of which one is a “member.” Not just a spectator, but a member.

Agreed, “member” applied in the above spirt reconciles this for me.

3. Kent- how are we going to get out of this audience mentality we are in? Back in the day of church “membership” it wasn’t a problem.

I don’t believe that “church membership” as it’s applied today effectively corrects this…there is some room to participate, but mostly in the busy-work of the “church” that is designed to support the business rather than the mission of the Church. This is a lot bigger than the scope of this post, or even this conversation, but I believe that we both believe that we should not be an audience, we should be participants.

4. How are you putting someone out of the Lord’s Table and out of the church if they weren’t a member?
5. After they are baptized, they are being counted as something. Why not members of the church at Jerusalem?
6. Who votes on leaders, if not members of the ekklesia?
7. WHo are leaders told to shepherd if not some kind of members?
8. Roman society had all kinds of guilds and organizations with membership. What is so strange about Christians having it?
9. Jews were members of the synagogue. Why would the church reject this?

All of this statements/points resonate when we repair/restore the “Pauline metaphor”.

10(a). I just have the suspicion that a good number of baby boomers don’t want to join up and be told they are expected to show up, help pay the bills, vote on leaders, etc. They want to show up and hear the preacher and sing. That’s an audience. That’s individualistic Christians just hanging out.

I agree absolutely, this is what I’m permanently sick of.

(10b.)The NT describes more than that. There is a movement, with people in and people out. We can call it what we want, but it looks like a church with members.

What you describe is what I want. But I’m out of energy and my wife is out of patience. I would like a greater involvement, but the pragmatic reality of making this happen in our life is difficult. I agree that some standing where we seem to be standing, i.e., “not connected to a particular local institutional body” are in peril, we are not. We are actually doing much better than we have at times with deeper involvement, but that’s because we seek out “membership”, i.e., “organic body-ness” with others and have found an elder to serve in an intimate pastoral role in our life.

We are part of the “body-at-large” in our community, but essentially unconnected from any particular body. Worship, teaching and the “sacraments” are still a part of our life, but of a form that varies from the experience of most. Not bad or wrong, just different.

Thank you Michael, this helps a great deal.

Kent: How would you explain the old patristic maxim extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation?

Better yet, is the Church something we add over and above salvation? Or, is the Church salvation, in some fundamental sense?

Vewy Intewesting. FaithfulReader.com vanishes. Discussion has taken off at IM at a record pace. My mailbox is full. And I’ve been accused of being obsessed with fear and judgment.. All I need is uh….someone telling me I’m not fit to be a minister… and it will be a perfect day.

It was the Ethiopian food that did it. I had two helpings. I will pay. :-)

I just read an interesting anti-war statement from a seminarian at my alma mater:

“God is against killing of any kind.” (or something to that effect).

Really? Huh, ‘cause I was under the impression that God thought killing Jesus was a pretty good idea. And while I’m at it, I’m sick to death of hearing, “it was my sin that crucified Jesus.” Really? I thought it was some Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross to fulfill a plan that God had laid out long ago.

I must be getting cranky. @#$% UK Wildcats!

I haven’t reviewed these. Take your chances. I don’t endorse any of them at this point. Maybe later. More »« Less