Celebrity Pastor and Seminaries

You read a lot today about the Celebrity Pastor and the problem and even how to fix it.  Opinions vary on the causes and solutions.  Sometimes it is an overhaul that includes no multisite churches, or the Evangelical Industrial Complex, or calls to humility and proper ambition, or even just simple accountability.  But I wonder if there is another factor . . . seminaries.

Today the vast majority of seminaries use “celebrity” professors as a way to lure you to their seminary.  These seminaries almost always have at least one well-liked, well published professor.  The better the finances of the seminary the more publishing by more professors, usually also equals more students.  You don’t need me to name the big names at each seminary you probably know them off the top of your head.  Besides the problem here is not in professors who write good books, but in the attraction students have to them. 

Modern seminaries also love distinctions.  You need something that sets your seminary apart.  What makes Westminster in Escondido, CA different than the rest?  What makes Mid America distinct so that you should go there?  Yes, this is promoted and encouraged.  And it is hard to blame the seminaries for doing it.  It is what businesses are supposed to do.  Carve out your place and grow that place.  And independent seminaries are no different. 

So perhaps part of the “celebrity pastor” begins with seminary.  We want future ministers to go to the seminaries with big names, but then when they get into the pastorate we don’t want them to pursuing having a big name or follow other pastors with big names. 

If we really want to fight against the cult of celebrity, we have to fight it everywhere, including in our seminaries.

Mars Hill Closing is what we ought to expect

So Mars Hill is closing.  Closing all of its multi-site campuses.  The move is described as "unexpected".  But really this is the single thing that we ought to expect.  This is what churches built upon personalities do. 
Remember Vision Forum?  Doug Phillips turns out to be . . . well, unqualified biblically.  What did Vision Forum do?  Exactly the same thing as Mars Hill.  Suspension and then close the doors. 
Remember what happened when R.C. Sproul Jr., got defrocked for tax fraud and breaking his vows?  The church just pulled out of the denomination, reinstated the man, and then got another group/denomination to make his work official again.
In fact, I bet you can count on this happening more and more. 
Why?
Because for these people no message is bigger than the man.  The man is the message.  And sadly that man is not Jesus Christ.  It really comes back down to who is the head of the church.  Is it Jesus or is it just the guy up front doing the preaching.  If it is Jesus, then he sets the rules.  And if the guy up front crosses the line that Jesus sets and becomes no longer qualified for ministry, then he is removed, and someone else proclaims the same message: the gospel of Jesus.  But if the man up front is bigger than the message, if the guy preaching is head of the church, then when something happens to him, then it is time to close up shop. 

Sadly this is not just the problem of the people up front.  Many in the pew have the same misguided idea.  They attend church not because of the faithful message of Jesus Christ, but because they like the guy up front.  Take a look at the history of Mega Churches.  The Crystal Cathedral was going strong until the man up front retired, now it is gone because the people quit coming.  The were followers of the man up front.  Bill Hybels was once a guru, he steps out of the pulpit to focus on other things, and now his church is in free fall.  People attended because of the man up front. 

It is not unexpected that man centered things fold when the man leaves.  Sadly this is the new normal for the church.

Mark Driscoll and New Calvinism

I want to follow up on some recent events.  Yes, I mean Mark Driscoll and his horrible behavior and his removal from Acts 29 Network, which by the way is far too late and just a political move in my opinion.  But I want to follow the example of Tim Challies and ask what this means about New Calvinism.

Challies wants us to see the truth that character matters in preachers and hopes the New Calvinism becomes a little less restless and a little more mature on this point.  Good points for sure, but I think it still does not quite hit the mark.  Character did not matter for Driscoll because New Calvinism is against denominations.  Going through ordinations processes with legitimate denominations is how we help weed out bad characters.  Obviously no one gets them all, but it is a check and balance.  New Calvinism is mostly independent minded and frankly you should expect abusive leaders in an environment where there is no one checking on the pastor.  There was no place for appeal for the members at Mars Hill.  There was no one to complain to about Driscoll except the people who had their jobs because they stayed in good graces with Driscoll. 

Perhaps now we ought to all go back and look at Piper’s points about New Calvinism and see how they helped create this mess.  The emphasis on the “local” church (point 5), personal networks (point 6), and interdenominational with a strong baptistic element (point 7) are other ways to see “breeding ground for tyranny and spiritual abuse”.  The Driscoll episode has exposed a flaw in the entire system.  Driscoll has been accused of many things over the past few years, but especially this past year.  Yet only now does Acts 29 do anything.  Only when Acts 29 itself is starting to look bad did disassociation occur.  And let us not mistake disassociation with discipline.  No discipline has taken place.  Yet, let us not forget that Acts 29 did not disassociate when Driscoll plagiarized and then abused the reporter who discovered it.  They did not disassociate when massive church funds were used to make Driscoll’s book a best seller.  Disassociation did not occur when Driscoll tried to crash MacArthur’s event.    They did not disassociate when his lack of humility led to several Twitter incidents and his temporary ban on himself from Twitter.  They did not disassociate for massive “staff turnovers”, which would have all had to be approved by a presbytery if the church were part of a denomination.  The disassociation came when many private emails were made public.  Now disassociation occurs. 

The Young Restless and Reformed - New Calvinism crowd all has to answer for this, in my opinion.  They helped give him a national stage.  They brought him into the lime light and crowned him.  John Piper and others welcomed him with open arms.  The inability of New Calvinism to denounce anything has come back to bite it.  It turns out we need the “Old” Calvinism structures of denominations, discipline, creeds, and rules.  It turns out they help protect the people in the pews, the integrity of the ministry, and promote the glory of Christ.

Why New Calvinism is not Calvinism

                The New Calvinist movement has been growing for some time and recently Rev. John Piper spoke a bit about it in a lecture to Westminster.  You can listen to it (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=1758), and Tim Challies has helpfully summarized the Twelve Points of New Calvinismprovided by Piper as well.  There are a growing number of posts responding of why they are not New Calvinists, but I cannot resist.  Some are even suggesting avoiding excessivecriticism of New Calvinism, but I just cannot do that either.  I am not a New Calvinist because New Calvinism is NOT Calvinism.  We need not be afraid to say that out loud.

                First, it should simply be obvious from the modifier.  New Calvinism.  Anytime you add a modifier, you are trying to show people that you are something other and different from the thing being modified.  Compassionate Conservatism for example is trying to emphasize how it is different, and thus better, than Conservatism.  How many people would argue that Neo Orthodoxy was really Orthodoxy?  No one.  Because the whole point of calling it Neo or New Orthodoxy is to show it is somehow different than Orthodoxy.  And examining Karl Barth and John Calvin does show difference abounds.  But for some reason today when people are claiming to be New Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists, we think they are identifying with the age old Calvinist message.  They aren’t.  They are trying to show they are different and better.

                Second, Piper’s points show New Calvinism ultimately is self-contradictory.  Calvinism does not work when modified and changed.  For example point 5 and 6 contradict one another.  Embracing the essential place of the local church is in direct contrast to the word “missional”.  Anytime you see the word “missional” you should be worried.  The missional movement down plays the church in favor of the mentioned personal networks.  Number 5 also contradicts number 8 as the centrality of the Word of God does not fit into a charismatic mold.  Which means I also think that number 8 contradicts number 1.  Those who believe in the continuing revelation do not really believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.  If the gift of prophecy or tongues is still around then the canon is not closed.  Plain and simple.  Let me also point out that number 5 contradicts number 10.  The local church is not really emphasized if Twitter is a major way of communicating, educating, and directing to new teachers and publishing books is a characteristic of the movement (also mentioned again in point 12) too.  Is this movement pushing local church pastors, or are local churches pushing book publishing pastors in a cult of personality way?  This is not how the Reformation went despite our emphasis on certain men today.  Does anyone even know what pastors helped reform the canton of Schaffhausen?  Who were the men on the ground in Memmingen, Augusburg, or Lindeau?  And by the way all of these places were Reformed before Calvin came on the scene. 

 

                Third, the fourth point about being culturally affirming while still holding out to some counter cultural points like being against gay marriage and abortion is a pretty vital point that should be considered.  I believe Tim Keller would call this “contextualization”.  While, I think all would agree that it is impossible to be completely divorced of culture even in presenting the gospel, it is fairly evident that the New (Neo)Calvinist movement goes a bit beyond that to actually affirming and adopting cultural (dare I say worldly) ways to share the truth of God.  Whether it is in rap music, “gospel eco-systems”, or the acceptance of evolution, the contextualization of the message of God is a point of great debate and a marked difference from Calvinism. 

               

                Fourth, hidden in the fifth point is a little nugget about producing widely sung worship music.  This really should be point 13, and is another major difference between Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.  This worship music is contemporary music, which is a major characteristic of Neo-Calvinism’s worship.  And it points to a very different view of worship overall.  This is a very major point.  Contemporary worship has a fundamentally different approach to worship than the traditional.  Rev. Tullian Tchividjian admits that having one contemporary service and one traditional is like having two separate churches, sadly his answer was to make one service that “blends” the two.  In other words now they have one contemporary service.  He states it is an attempt to transcend age and cultural style barriers.  But that is not right.  The traditional service had done that for centuries.  While there are always some stylistic differences in the centuries it easily all fit into a category you could have called “Church music”.  It transcended age and culture.  But the Contemporary Worship comes in and denies “church music” altogether and proclaims we must put Christian words to popular styles like Punk Rock and Rap as well as Pop to sing in church.  It is not an attempt to draw together, but rather an attempt to bring the world into the church, and denies the church’s separateness from the world especially in style of music.  The same can be said of things like movie clips, twitter usage, and service structure.  The difference simply put is this: Calvinism says worship is where God calls us to himself to worship Him as He demands, and Neo Calvinism says worship is where we use our culture to glorify God. 

 

                I could go on and discuss the fruit of some of the New Calvinist Leaders, but I would rather focus on the real doctrinal differences.  I know that many want to embrace it and/or pretend it is a good thing, but I fear not.  If we grant commonality with this New Calvinism, we are going to end up losing the distinctive call of the Gospel of the Reformation.  A call that points to Christ, calls us to overcome the world in Him, and worship Him as He demands, in the churches that He gave.  We are being challenged right now on all of those points, we dare not give in. 

Nothing New at New Life

Christianity Today’s cover article actually made me sad.  It is about New Life church in Colorado Springs and where it is now (supposedly in a recovery) after the Ted Haggard business and the shooting that followed not long after.  It made me sad because I still don’t think they get it. 

The article is written by a man who worked there for a long time, left after all the bad stuff, and has recently come back.  But listen to his description of why he started going there in the first place.  He describes the priorities as: “Be a blessing to the world around you”.  Then he states,

"Haggard issued a straight-forward gospel, one calling Christians to give their lives to steady prayer and acts of love." (CT Dec. 2013 issue. pg. 38) 

I am not against prayer and acts of love nor being a blessing to those around you, but this is not the straight forward gospel.  The gospel call is straightforward, but it is “Repent and believe”.  Believe what?  Believe Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God, who has come into the world to take away our sins.  According to the article this was not part of the “glory days” of New Life.  Sin is not something you will find mentioned much in the article nor repentance.  Then, according to the article, they went astray getting into politics and then the awful stuff.  Now they are getting back to basics.  What are those basics?  Back to prayer and being a blessing to the less fortunate with acts of love.  This is not getting back to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is back to community service. 

The article goes on to talk about how at New Life – Downtown they are doing some sort of Anglican worship and how the elders have now voted the Nicene Creed as their statement of faith.  But it is hard to escape the notion that they have no idea about the theology behind Anglican worship.  Or behind a man being ordained a “priest”.  The article mentions the insights of John Stott, Karl Barth, N.T. Wright, but most importantly Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message.  Somehow, I think even Wright would be horrified at that thought. 

The article was the cover article and touted as good news amidst the awful news that is usually reported.  I found the distinct lack of “good news” to be the main problem.  I am glad that community service is being done.  But that is not what saves people’s souls.  That is not any different than what the Rotary Club does.  New Life appears to have never focused in on the gospel, and they are still missing the boat.  Out of all the bad news usually reported, I find this to be the saddest of all.

 

DISCLAIMER: I lived in the Springs and knew several people who attended New Life before the Haggard controversy. 

September 14th worse than September 11th?

September 11th was a horrible day.  A day worth remembering.  However, does anyone remember the devastation of September 14th?

President George W. Bush declared September 14, 2001 to be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance.  And at noon, eastern time, a service began at the Washington National Cathedral that was headlined by the President and mega-evangelist Billy Graham.  However, these were not the only speakers.  Rabbi Joshua Haberman took the stage to read Scripture, and Imam Muzammil Siddiqi offered a prayer.  This service was broadcast on every major channel and seen by much of America and in many schools.  In fact, at Compassion International, where I worked at the time, everyone stopped working to watch.  

During the Clinton administration, people often talked of how the President, by his poor example, was teaching a future generation promiscuity and lies.  Those people were right.  The President does wield great power, and Clinton probably did teach really poor sexual ethics to a generation of kids.  However, those critics were silent when President Bush later taught a generation of kids that there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  That service on September 14th violated the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments, just to name a few.  And for the most part, the Christian world stayed silent.  And what's worse is the much-revered Christian leader who participated in a worship service where prayers were offered to Allah.  I seem to remember that his remarks included references to Jesus Christ, but long after the words are forgotten, the visual image remains.  Billy Graham and President Bush had no problem worshipping with Muslims and Jews.  And the whole world watched, and the whole world was silent.

Is it any surprise that 12 years later we have a generation of young adults who think tolerance is the most important attribute?  Is it a surprise that we have witnessed such a dramatic rise in acceptance of sinful behaviors ranging from getting stoned to homosexuality?  Is it a surprise that the church is facing new movements such as the Insider Movement or the Hebrew Roots movement?  And a big reason for these changes is the young adults who have dramatically different views about the world from their predecessors.  In fact, more Americans today claim no religious affiliation at all, and the largest number of those is under 30.  Those are the people who were young and impressionable in 2001.  Could it be that they were influenced by September 14th?

I am not saying that one worship service entirely changed the culture, but I do believe that this one had a larger influence than we think.  It was a moment when the world stopped, and people took notice of what was going on.  And the church (for the most part) stood by silently when the truth of "You shall have no other gods before me" was attacked in a very public forum.  And that silence was deafening.  Maybe it was because everyone's focus was on the looming war or the shock of what had happened.  Maybe no one wanted to shatter the apparent unity that encompassed the capitol and the nation.  Maybe we put America above God.  Whatever the reason, we are certainly reaping the harvest now.  

May God forgive us for our sins, including those of omission, for it is only in His mercy that can we find hope.   

Peace and Argumentation

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3)

This is a very misused verse these days. I do not think that the real meaning is mysterious. In fact, I think Paul spells out the bond of peace in the following verses where he speaks about having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope and one God and Father. I do think Paul is urging brothers and sisters in Christ to bear with one another in love and patience. This is true and not really debatable.

Where I think this verse is misused is that it has become a rallying cry to end conversation, to stop talking and let ‘peace’ reign. The problem is that Paul is saying that peace reigns where the oneness of Christianity reigns. However, if we cannot agree on the ‘one faith’ or the ‘one hope’ or even the ‘one Lord’ then there is no peace. None. The history of the church is littered with times that people used the cry of peace to stop discussion and before you know it, unbelief wins the day. Because peace cannot exist outside of those bonds Paul describes. In the 1920’s the Presbyterian church tried to have peace and the next thing you know the church is kicking people out that think Christians need to believe in the Bible or that Mary was a virgin and many other things. The ‘one faith’ is now optional and those who did not think so were removed. That same Presbyterian Church (USA) is going through similar things now. An accord had been struck between the pro-homosexual minister group and the anti-homosexual minister group. A peace if you will. Then what happens? The pro-homosexual group makes a big power play and there is little left for the conservative branch of the church left to do but leave. The fight is over and won because they tried to pretend bonds of peace existed where the ‘one faith’ did not. Just to show that I am not picking on any one church, I think my denomination, the RCUS, did the same thing in the late 19th century.

I point this out because of a discussion that happened recently on Reformed Catholicism. It began with a quote from A.B. Bruce about how “very humiliating” it is that “the symbol of union has been turned into a chief cause of division” of course referencing debates about the Lord’s Supper. Yet, there are denominations or religions out there that teach a version of the Supper that denies our ‘one faith’, and our ‘one hope’. The Supper is not our symbol of union with those who deny the complete efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross. Why should we try to have peace with those who deny the bonds of peace? Peace is not something we create. Peace is not the absence of talking or discussion or some visible unity of being in the same church building or eating the same meal. Peace is found in the things listed by Paul. Without those there is no peace no matter how much we may avoid discussing the hard things.

It is hard to imagine the trouble the church has caused by silencing itself in hopes of a peace that does not exist. If you want to make a Christian mad today and have him stomp off, try discussing your ‘one hope’ or the doctrine of our ‘one baptism’. Doctrine divides they scream as they shut their ears. We have mistaken peace for the absence of argumentation and discussion. A serious error.

Defrocking and Tyranny

R.C. Sproul Jr., has apparently been defrocked by his denomination. The charges are numerous, and Rev. Sproul’s response is limited. I do not know which side is right, nor am I taking sides. I have a few friends who attend St. Peter’s Church and I know this must be a troubled time for them. I hope and pray that the discipline of the church results in repentance and restoration, no matter which side is the offending side.

But, church discipline is not tyrannical, as Rev. Sandlin has suggested. In fact, I think that this case is a perfect example of the Presbyterian court system working to avoid tyranny. There were those who felt wronged by St. Peter’s and they had a place to take their complaint. If St. Peter’s had been a congregational church, then the session would have continued in its tyranny, or the unsubmissive complainers would not have had another court reinforce the decision of the St. Peter’s session. Whichever way it works out, it works out for the better. Rev. Sandlin thinks the way to avoid church tyranny is to be autonomous local churches. I disagree. I think a connectionalism, specifically a system of courts, is a much better way to avoid tyranny.

Pat Robertson again

It goes without saying, but in case anyone doubts, Pat Robertson is out of line with his attribution of Prime Minister Sharon’s stroke to God being angry about the ‘holy land.’ Yet, Pat Robertson has tremendous influence and has his defenders even after calling for an assassination, telling people not to call out to God if they are against Intelligent Design, and this incident as well. It seems to me that Robertson’s The 700 Club is actually one of the more dangerous influences in the Christian sub-culture today. Not only does the 700 Club take money from the elderly and poor at an alarming rate, but it promotes disturbing theological ideas and often outwardly anti-Christian behavior (like killing foreign leaders), as well as promoting salvation through politics.

Pat Robertson should repent

I just wanted to post a quick not to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is wrong. He should publicly repent, just as he publicly sinned when he threw away the 6th commandment to make a political statement. His suggestion now that he was taken out of context make it more ridiculous. “Take him out” usually means killing, and in context it is hard to see how he meant anything else. Even if he did mean kidnapping, he is still throwing away the commandments of God. Such things should not be suggested, especially by an ordained man.
I believe this is related to previous discussions about salvation through politics. Why would a minister suggest such things? What do we, as Christians, have to fear from a foreign dictator, even a strong communist one? The answer is nothing. He can do nothing to us. There appears to be a confusion somewhere between the Church, the Kingdom of God, and America; a confusion between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Free Market Democracy. These things ought not to be confused. Robertson should stop stalling, admit his wrong, and repent.

Christian Activism and Salvation by Politics

Here is an example of how Christians confusing the gospel and politics. The Center For Reclaiming America for Christ, headed by Dr. James Kennedy, has mailed out a petition for people to sign asking each of their senators to confirm John Roberts. The whole appeal is couched in Christian language, even though it admits that one can only pray that John Roberts will actually defend such things as the Right-to-Life and ‘defend Biblical marriage.” They want us to make sure that the faith of John Roberts will not be attacked during this confirmation battle. This whole admission shows the misunderstanding. Why should people of faith rally behind Mr. Roberts? Even the letter of appeal is careful not to be too specific in its praise. It states that “we understand John Roberts is a man of integrity” or “he is spoken of” rather than knowing for sure one way or the other. Since we are not sure of his faith, why support him so strongly? He is a Roman Catholic, why should I as a Protestant trust his faith? Dr. Kennedy does not answer such questions. Nor does he answer why Senators are not allowed to discuss or attack his faith. If we want the Christian faith to guide our government why should we not want our Senators to check it out? These are just a few of my problems. In my opinion, Dr. Kennedy and his group is just acting on behalf of the Republican Party.

Politics or Gospel?

The PyroManiac, Phil Johnson, has a bit of disagreement with Jus Divinium of Triablogue. The disagreement seems to be over the role of the Christian in politics. While I am personally acquainted with neither of these gentlemen, this is the blogosphere, and I am going to give you my opinion of this debate. To summarize, Phil is arguing the traditional fundamentalist viewpoint that there is no “reasoned biblical rationale for connecting common grace with a ‘cultural mandate’ for the church,”(quoted in the response section, not the article proper). Jus, on the other hand, is arguing that Christian political activism is a legitimate enterprise of the church. Jus is defending Chuck Colson and his political scheme that includes working alongside Romanists and unbelievers to achieve political goals, and Phil is saying that this clouds, confuses, and distorts the gospel, referencing Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together document as proof.
I think that they are both wrong. Phil seems to have a problem saying the Bible gives Christians and the Church a ‘cultural mandate.’ I would argue that Genesis 1:28 gives us a cultural mandate, the biblical directive that Phil seems to desire. In this verse, God tells us to have dominion over the entire earth and all that lives and moves within it. Phil admits that the individual Christian is to be salt and light in whatever area he finds himself, so the question becomes why is it wrong for the church to instruct him in exercising dominion? Why is it okay for a Christian to be salt and light as a politician or a dentist but not okay for the church to instruct that Christian on how to be salt and light in government and oral hygiene? I would also argue that Christ did affect the political climate of his time. He spoke and acted against moral injustices that faced him. He overturned the moneychangers in the temple, and he condemned the Pharisees and Scribes as hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. Christ made sure Pilate knew all authority on heaven and earth came from God, not from Rome. Paul used his Roman citizenship to further his purpose. The book of Proverbs contains wisdom for kings and rulers as well as ordinary men. The Word of God speaks to all areas of life, or as Kuyper put it, there is not one inch of creation of which Christ does not say, “mine.”
Yet Phil has a legitimate complaint about Jus and Chuck Colson. Too many people think that salvation for our country and maybe ourselves comes through the voting booth or the next Supreme Court nominee. When we begin to form political alliances with unbelievers. While Jus agrees that confusing the gospel and politics is bad and admits it should be rebuked, he fails to realize that Colson does just that. Phil is right that it is a historical fact that when a church compromises for the sake of political activism, it leads to ecumenism and, I would add, liberalism. The church’s job is to be the salt that preserves God’s culture, but this means defending God’s Law and Word, not promoting human political parties that have little to nothing do with God’s Law or Word. The church should cry out with all her strength about the mass-murder atrocity that is abortion, but she should not insert herself in the choosing of a Supreme Court nominee or throw the weight of God’s approval behind a political party or a person. When we look to Chuck Colson and his ECT or Dr. Dobson and his Focus on the Family political action committee for direction in casting our ballots, we have lost sight of the true nature of the gospel. The church should teach about voting and moral issues and should critique worldviews; however, organizing Political Action Committees does not fall under those auspices. I would encourage Jus to take another look at ECT, and see if the gospel may have been hidden.
Phil seems to argue that evangelism is the only method of changing the culture that the church can utilize. I disagree. Churches ought to condemn abortion, the Right-to-Die movement, and homosexual marriage. Churches ought to encourage Christians to oppose such things. Jus needs to recognize that political victory without the gospel spells certain death in the long run. Was Rome really better because Constantine was a Christian? Was the church? The answer is not the simple ‘yes’ Phil’s argument assumes. We have a cultural mandate as Christians and as the church, but it is so tightly wrapped up with the gospel that we can never set it aside, lay it down, confuse it, or replace it. The church ought to speak out on cultural issues, educate its members about them, but the can’t pick political parties or candidates for her members. The church also cannot compromise the gospel in order to achieve political ends. There is no benefit to outlawing abortion if we have to deny justification by faith alone to accomplish it.

Arch Bishop Fiasco

Rowan Williams, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has spoken out again. I know that I should be charitable to others, but this guy scares me. The article begins with this statement.

The Asian tsunami disaster should make all Christians question the existence of God, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in The Telegraph today

He also speaks of the “random, accidental death” of those in the Tsunami Disaster. This man is the head of the Anglican Church. I will be honest and admit that I openly worry about the health of the Church of England. This is the same leader who has taken a rather weak stand on the openly gay bishop elected in America. He has supported a new ‘sinner friendly’ bible translation and wants the Gospel of Thomas included in the Bible. Now he has done it again. A complete denial of God’s sovereign control. He offers no help, no comfort. Instead, he tries to rip away the only source of comfort in such an event. I have to wonder, how did this man ascend to the highest post in the Anglican Church? How can those faithful branches of the Anglican community, not only the churches here in America, but in Africa especially and elsewhere, remain united under this man’s leadership?

It saddens one to think that there are Christians out there who would turn to the Arch Bishop for guidance, and this is what he gives them. ‘It is okay to doubt God, and wonder why God exists.’ The great and glorious history of this church suffers a black eye under Dr. Williams. Somewhere Thomas Cramner is rolling over in his grave.

Wild but not Right

John Eldredge is one of the hottest evangelical authors out there today. He has his Wild at Heart ministry, which is the name of his retreats, and the name his most popular book. He has been on the cover of Christianity Today, and recently been interviewed by Dr. Dobson for his radio show. Sadly, Eldredge is one of the growing examples of popular evangelical leaders that led people astray and down paths that have little to no substance at all.

Eldredge stated mission is to teach Christians, especially men, how to live a better life, a life where the desires of your heart are achieved. After all, the desires of our heart are given to us by God, and therefore, he will grant them if you pursue Him, according to Eldredge. It must be admitted that Eldredge has hit on a major problem in America, the weakness of the man. They seldom live up to their biblical responsibilities, and many churches actively distort the biblical teaching on the subject; however, Eldredge does little to better the situation. His answer is not explication of Ephesians 5 or others biblical discussions on manhood, rather, he advocates living like the warrior that God wanted you to be and spends too much time explicating movies like Braveheart as the example for males. I have two major problems with Eldredge’s teachings.

1. He down plays the Fall and sin. This has numerous manifestations in his theology. He has a muddled view of Christ’s death. It is much closer to a moral persuasion than an actual atonement. Eldredge also shows affection for the ‘mouse trap’ theory of the atonement as well. Christ is God’s greatest attempt to woo mankind. It also shows up in Eldredge wanting people to live out there inner most desires. He wants people to listen to their hearts, and thinks that those who teach otherwise are dangerous. He brushes aside versus that teach the heart of man is deceitful and wicked in favor of a rosy view of the human condition. It seems that Eldredge believes the Christian does not have a remaining sinful nature. A third manifestation of this down played view of sin, is that Eldredge often comes out as dualistic. He likes the idea of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Man seems to be the neutral prize over which God and Satan duel it out. These things combine to show a real lack of understanding of sin. Thus, his teachings lead down dangerous roads.

2. He openly advocates a Medieval mysticism. He loves the Desert Fathers as he calls them. The ones who escaped the Church, the World, and everything else to pursue the Sacred Romance, as he calls God from time to time. In effect, Eldredge advocates this type of worldview. He gives example after example of mystical encounters with God that he believes to be the norm. His contempt for the established church is clear, and his role of the Bible is diminished in favor of experience. He loves Soren Kierkegaard, any mystic, and most Romanists. He loves movies for they are the modern way to have your soul touched, and they show the desires of the heart. Anything it takes to get that fleeting experience where you feel romanced by God is good, and right. Quite contrary to the Bible, and its teachings of restricted worship in the 2nd Commandment.

Over all, Eldredge is a dangerous man. He will lead people to search for truth apart from the Scriptures. He will lead them out of the established churches because they do not teach as he does. And, he will lead them into movie theaters to get a good glimpse of Romance in action. The effects of his movement are yet to be really felt, but it will come soon enough. The church will be sorry they did not do more to stop this movement in its early stages.