Why the Ted Haggard scandal could have been much worse than it was.
As many of you know, Ted Haggard served as a senior editorial adviser to Ministry Today and wrote a column in each issue of the magazine until this past May, when his increasing duties at New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals precluded his ongoing involvement. During the time he served in this role, we appreciated his warm personal encouragement and insight--as well as his incisive wit in writing and conversation. We're still reeling as we read the accusations, admissions and announcement of his resignation from the NAE and dismissal from the pastorate of the church he founded and successfully led for so many years.
We do not want to understate the long-term effect this scandal will have on New Life Church, the Body of Christ at large and the world's public perception of God's people. But while we are sobered by the events of the past week and vividly reminded of our own frailty and vulnerability to sin, we are also strangely relieved. Why? Because this could have gone so much worse had it occurred at one of many other charismatic congregations whose leaders do not have the sense to structure their church government to account for such a dreadful situation.
Consider the case of the Atlanta church essentially run by a family of untouchable religious potentates, several of whom have been accused of ethical and moral lapses, but who have maintained control of their church through a bizarre combination of blackmail, bribery and spiritual manipulation. The congregation of thousands has shriveled to a handful, leaving a trail of shattered and disillusioned souls.
Then, there's the Arlington, Texas, pastor who drugged women in his church with methamphetamines and then raped them. Although allegations of misconduct had swirled around him for some time, it was not until he was hauled off to prison to pay for his crimes, that his pastoral position was pried from his grasp ... and given to his wife.
This is not to say that denominational churches are immune to such spiritual thuggery. Most of us remember the Southern California pastor who divorced his wife, remarried a week later and pulled his 10,000-member church out of his denomination when its leaders had the guts to confront him for his outrageous conduct.
In contrast, the bylaws of New Life Church were written in such a way that within 72 hours of the initial allegations of Haggard's conduct, he had been investigated, removed from his post by a team of overseers and elders from inside and outside the church and placed in the restorative care of three respected church leaders.
This is not to say that the system worked perfectly--a "perfect" system would have prevented this scandal from occurring in the first place. As the story unfolds, it will doubtless be revealed that warning signs were ignored and safeguards were overlooked. Even the most efficient structures of accountability and discipline cannot contain the destructive forces of our human depravity. But the leaders to whom Haggard was accountable should be commended for the swift and decisive manner in which the situation was dealt with.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
November 8, 2006
08 November 2006
What New Life Did Right
Why the Ted Haggard scandal could have been much worse than it was.
As many of you know, Ted Haggard served as a senior editorial adviser to Ministry Today and wrote a column in each issue of the magazine until this past May, when his increasing duties at New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals precluded his ongoing involvement. During the time he served in this role, we appreciated his warm personal encouragement and insight--as well as his incisive wit in writing and conversation. We're still reeling as we read the accusations, admissions and announcement of his resignation from the NAE and dismissal from the pastorate of the church he founded and successfully led for so many years.
We do not want to understate the long-term effect this scandal will have on New Life Church, the Body of Christ at large and the world's public perception of God's people. But while we are sobered by the events of the past week and vividly reminded of our own frailty and vulnerability to sin, we are also strangely relieved. Why? Because this could have gone so much worse had it occurred at one of many other charismatic congregations whose leaders do not have the sense to structure their church government to account for such a dreadful situation.
Consider the case of the Atlanta church essentially run by a family of untouchable religious potentates, several of whom have been accused of ethical and moral lapses, but who have maintained control of their church through a bizarre combination of blackmail, bribery and spiritual manipulation. The congregation of thousands has shriveled to a handful, leaving a trail of shattered and disillusioned souls.
Then, there's the Arlington, Texas, pastor who drugged women in his church with methamphetamines and then raped them. Although allegations of misconduct had swirled around him for some time, it was not until he was hauled off to prison to pay for his crimes, that his pastoral position was pried from his grasp ... and given to his wife.
This is not to say that denominational churches are immune to such spiritual thuggery. Most of us remember the Southern California pastor who divorced his wife, remarried a week later and pulled his 10,000-member church out of his denomination when its leaders had the guts to confront him for his outrageous conduct.
In contrast, the bylaws of New Life Church were written in such a way that within 72 hours of the initial allegations of Haggard's conduct, he had been investigated, removed from his post by a team of overseers and elders from inside and outside the church and placed in the restorative care of three respected church leaders.
This is not to say that the system worked perfectly--a "perfect" system would have prevented this scandal from occurring in the first place. As the story unfolds, it will doubtless be revealed that warning signs were ignored and safeguards were overlooked. Even the most efficient structures of accountability and discipline cannot contain the destructive forces of our human depravity. But the leaders to whom Haggard was accountable should be commended for the swift and decisive manner in which the situation was dealt with.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
November 8, 2006
As many of you know, Ted Haggard served as a senior editorial adviser to Ministry Today and wrote a column in each issue of the magazine until this past May, when his increasing duties at New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals precluded his ongoing involvement. During the time he served in this role, we appreciated his warm personal encouragement and insight--as well as his incisive wit in writing and conversation. We're still reeling as we read the accusations, admissions and announcement of his resignation from the NAE and dismissal from the pastorate of the church he founded and successfully led for so many years.
We do not want to understate the long-term effect this scandal will have on New Life Church, the Body of Christ at large and the world's public perception of God's people. But while we are sobered by the events of the past week and vividly reminded of our own frailty and vulnerability to sin, we are also strangely relieved. Why? Because this could have gone so much worse had it occurred at one of many other charismatic congregations whose leaders do not have the sense to structure their church government to account for such a dreadful situation.
Consider the case of the Atlanta church essentially run by a family of untouchable religious potentates, several of whom have been accused of ethical and moral lapses, but who have maintained control of their church through a bizarre combination of blackmail, bribery and spiritual manipulation. The congregation of thousands has shriveled to a handful, leaving a trail of shattered and disillusioned souls.
Then, there's the Arlington, Texas, pastor who drugged women in his church with methamphetamines and then raped them. Although allegations of misconduct had swirled around him for some time, it was not until he was hauled off to prison to pay for his crimes, that his pastoral position was pried from his grasp ... and given to his wife.
This is not to say that denominational churches are immune to such spiritual thuggery. Most of us remember the Southern California pastor who divorced his wife, remarried a week later and pulled his 10,000-member church out of his denomination when its leaders had the guts to confront him for his outrageous conduct.
In contrast, the bylaws of New Life Church were written in such a way that within 72 hours of the initial allegations of Haggard's conduct, he had been investigated, removed from his post by a team of overseers and elders from inside and outside the church and placed in the restorative care of three respected church leaders.
This is not to say that the system worked perfectly--a "perfect" system would have prevented this scandal from occurring in the first place. As the story unfolds, it will doubtless be revealed that warning signs were ignored and safeguards were overlooked. Even the most efficient structures of accountability and discipline cannot contain the destructive forces of our human depravity. But the leaders to whom Haggard was accountable should be commended for the swift and decisive manner in which the situation was dealt with.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
November 8, 2006
03 November 2006
21st-Century Media Consumption
Highlights from my presentation at the Morning Star Ministries 2006 Writers, Media and Creative Arts Conference:
07 October 2006
Islam Will Fall
The gospel will accomplish what guns and bombs never will.
Islam will fall. This is not the prediction of a diplomat with an ironclad peace treaty, a general with a superweapon ... or even a hippy in his "herb garden." This is the conviction of Brother Yun, a leader in the “underground” church in China living in exile in Western Europe. I recently had a chance to meet Yun and was humbled by the vision he shares with millions of Chinese Christians.
The Back to Jerusalem Vision, the movement Yun represents, is committed to taking the gospel across Asia to the heart of the Muslim world in order to complete the mandate of the Great Commission. Not willing to wait until the guns of the West convince radical Muslims that democracy and freedom are superior to oppression, many in the Chinese church believe that God has strategically chosen them to embrace a task that has befuddled Western missionaries for centuries.
Yun argues that a religion that offers its sons to die in fiery suicide bomb attacks will only be penetrated by a gospel whose adherents are more willing to die as martyrs at the hands of their persecutors than take up the sword in defense of their faith. Since 1949, when the Cultural Revolution began in China, Christians there have demonstrated their willingness to do so.
“Guns and bombs will not change the Muslim world, but the gospel will,” he explains. “Perhaps thousands of Chinese missionaries will die in the evangelization of the Muslim world.”
Lest you think Yun is merely another ivory-tower pacifist, I would encourage you to read his gripping autobiography, The Heavenly Man, in which he recounts his multiple imprisonments and horrific torture at the hands of the Chinese government. Yun is a man who has tasted violent persecution firsthand (e.g., He's been electrocuted, beaten, had needles jammed under his fingernails ...), and he has also seen miraculous intervention--one time walking out of a maximum security prison in full view of the guards (a la Peter, Acts 12), who looked through him, as if he weren't there.
The Back to Jerusalem vision could be a rude awakening for the Western church, which has sometimes assumed the task of the Great Commission single handedly and relied on its satellite broadcasts, Bible translations and tent crusades to get the job done. We can learn from the radical commitment of our Chinese brothers and sisters as they redefine missiology in the 21st century. .
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 7, 2006
Islam will fall. This is not the prediction of a diplomat with an ironclad peace treaty, a general with a superweapon ... or even a hippy in his "herb garden." This is the conviction of Brother Yun, a leader in the “underground” church in China living in exile in Western Europe. I recently had a chance to meet Yun and was humbled by the vision he shares with millions of Chinese Christians.
The Back to Jerusalem Vision, the movement Yun represents, is committed to taking the gospel across Asia to the heart of the Muslim world in order to complete the mandate of the Great Commission. Not willing to wait until the guns of the West convince radical Muslims that democracy and freedom are superior to oppression, many in the Chinese church believe that God has strategically chosen them to embrace a task that has befuddled Western missionaries for centuries.
Yun argues that a religion that offers its sons to die in fiery suicide bomb attacks will only be penetrated by a gospel whose adherents are more willing to die as martyrs at the hands of their persecutors than take up the sword in defense of their faith. Since 1949, when the Cultural Revolution began in China, Christians there have demonstrated their willingness to do so.
“Guns and bombs will not change the Muslim world, but the gospel will,” he explains. “Perhaps thousands of Chinese missionaries will die in the evangelization of the Muslim world.”
Lest you think Yun is merely another ivory-tower pacifist, I would encourage you to read his gripping autobiography, The Heavenly Man, in which he recounts his multiple imprisonments and horrific torture at the hands of the Chinese government. Yun is a man who has tasted violent persecution firsthand (e.g., He's been electrocuted, beaten, had needles jammed under his fingernails ...), and he has also seen miraculous intervention--one time walking out of a maximum security prison in full view of the guards (a la Peter, Acts 12), who looked through him, as if he weren't there.
The Back to Jerusalem vision could be a rude awakening for the Western church, which has sometimes assumed the task of the Great Commission single handedly and relied on its satellite broadcasts, Bible translations and tent crusades to get the job done. We can learn from the radical commitment of our Chinese brothers and sisters as they redefine missiology in the 21st century. .
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 7, 2006
Islam Will Fall
The gospel will accomplish what guns and bombs never will.
Islam will fall. This is not the prediction of a diplomat with an ironclad peace treaty, a general with a superweapon ... or even a hippy in his "herb garden." This is the conviction of Brother Yun, a leader in the “underground” church in China living in exile in Western Europe. I recently had a chance to meet Yun and was humbled by the vision he shares with millions of Chinese Christians.
The Back to Jerusalem Vision, the movement Yun represents, is committed to taking the gospel across Asia to the heart of the Muslim world in order to complete the mandate of the Great Commission. Not willing to wait until the guns of the West convince radical Muslims that democracy and freedom are superior to oppression, many in the Chinese church believe that God has strategically chosen them to embrace a task that has befuddled Western missionaries for centuries.
Yun argues that a religion that offers its sons to die in fiery suicide bomb attacks will only be penetrated by a gospel whose adherents are more willing to die as martyrs at the hands of their persecutors than take up the sword in defense of their faith. Since 1949, when the Cultural Revolution began in China, Christians there have demonstrated their willingness to do so.
“Guns and bombs will not change the Muslim world, but the gospel will,” he explains. “Perhaps thousands of Chinese missionaries will die in the evangelization of the Muslim world.”
Lest you think Yun is merely another ivory-tower pacifist, I would encourage you to read his gripping autobiography, The Heavenly Man, in which he recounts his multiple imprisonments and horrific torture at the hands of the Chinese government. Yun is a man who has tasted violent persecution firsthand (e.g., He's been electrocuted, beaten, had needles jammed under his fingernails ...), and he has also seen miraculous intervention--one time walking out of a maximum security prison in full view of the guards (a la Peter, Acts 12), who looked through him, as if he weren't there.
The Back to Jerusalem vision could be a rude awakening for the Western church, which has sometimes assumed the task of the Great Commission single handedly and relied on its satellite broadcasts, Bible translations and tent crusades to get the job done. We can learn from the radical commitment of our Chinese brothers and sisters as they redefine missiology in the 21st century. .
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 7, 2006
Islam will fall. This is not the prediction of a diplomat with an ironclad peace treaty, a general with a superweapon ... or even a hippy in his "herb garden." This is the conviction of Brother Yun, a leader in the “underground” church in China living in exile in Western Europe. I recently had a chance to meet Yun and was humbled by the vision he shares with millions of Chinese Christians.
The Back to Jerusalem Vision, the movement Yun represents, is committed to taking the gospel across Asia to the heart of the Muslim world in order to complete the mandate of the Great Commission. Not willing to wait until the guns of the West convince radical Muslims that democracy and freedom are superior to oppression, many in the Chinese church believe that God has strategically chosen them to embrace a task that has befuddled Western missionaries for centuries.
Yun argues that a religion that offers its sons to die in fiery suicide bomb attacks will only be penetrated by a gospel whose adherents are more willing to die as martyrs at the hands of their persecutors than take up the sword in defense of their faith. Since 1949, when the Cultural Revolution began in China, Christians there have demonstrated their willingness to do so.
“Guns and bombs will not change the Muslim world, but the gospel will,” he explains. “Perhaps thousands of Chinese missionaries will die in the evangelization of the Muslim world.”
Lest you think Yun is merely another ivory-tower pacifist, I would encourage you to read his gripping autobiography, The Heavenly Man, in which he recounts his multiple imprisonments and horrific torture at the hands of the Chinese government. Yun is a man who has tasted violent persecution firsthand (e.g., He's been electrocuted, beaten, had needles jammed under his fingernails ...), and he has also seen miraculous intervention--one time walking out of a maximum security prison in full view of the guards (a la Peter, Acts 12), who looked through him, as if he weren't there.
The Back to Jerusalem vision could be a rude awakening for the Western church, which has sometimes assumed the task of the Great Commission single handedly and relied on its satellite broadcasts, Bible translations and tent crusades to get the job done. We can learn from the radical commitment of our Chinese brothers and sisters as they redefine missiology in the 21st century. .
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 7, 2006
06 October 2006
The [New] Christian Coalition
Isn’t the Christian right’s agenda already too broad?
Over the weekend it was announced that Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed (a congregation of 7,000 in the Orlando area) has been selected to serve as president of the Christian Coalition of America (CC).
The organization has struggled in recent years with a shrinking constituency, mounting debt and the recent departure of several state chapters. Formed by televangelist Pat Robertson and led in its heyday by lobbyist and U.S. Senate hopeful Ralph Reed, the CC will--for the first time--be led by a pastor. Additionally, by moving its offices from Washington, D.C., to Central Florida, the organization signals a not-so-subtle shift from a lobbying group that speaks on behalf of the religious right to a church-focused organization that equips local congregations to effect social and political change.
As the Orlando Sentinel notes, although he is against abortion and gay marriage, Hunter also opposes the death penalty. The article cites Hunter's involvement with the Evangelical Environmental Network and his recent book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird, as indicators of his political unpredictability. This has led observers to interpret Hunter's appointment as a signal of the "broadening" of the Christian Coalition's base of issues. There is even consternation from some who feel the CC will risk losing consensus by focusing on issues that not everyone can agree on, such as global warming.
The problem is that the opponents of this "broadening" of the CC have inadvertently pointed out the very reason the CC (and organizations like it) are in such desperate need of reform: They are already too broad--so broad that they have made a practice of championing issues of marginal consequence to biblical Christianity. Don't believe me? Among other things, the CC has:
* Expressed disappointment with senators who opposed the flag amendment
* Supported the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act*
* Supported the U.N. Reform Act of 2005
* Supported Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA)
* Supported making permanent the 2001-2003 tax cuts
Please understand: I am not criticizing the validity of any of the above positions--I would support most of them. I'm simply questioning whether they should be embraced as "Christian" positions--particularly when this same organization is deafeningly silent on issues on which a biblical worldview requires extensive reflection, such as: creation care, torture, the death penalty, war, poverty, affirmative action, AIDS and human trafficking.
Sure, the topics above are politically divisive at times--and pose real challenges for consensus building. But the beauty of an organization like the CC is that it can afford to be "narrow" in its thrust--driven not by political vagaries or partisan loyalty, but by the unflinching demands of a biblical worldview. Anything less exhibits a disingenuous lack of balance, limiting our ability to speak prophetically to both sides of the aisle and reinforcing the impression that one party has evangelicals in its pocket--and vice versa.
Simply put, we've become too predictable. Joel Hunter's appointment to the Christian Coalition brings a fresh breeze of unpredictability that will scare some but may engage evangelicals who are pro-life and pro-marriage--but who know that biblical values don't stop there.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 6, 2006
Over the weekend it was announced that Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed (a congregation of 7,000 in the Orlando area) has been selected to serve as president of the Christian Coalition of America (CC).
The organization has struggled in recent years with a shrinking constituency, mounting debt and the recent departure of several state chapters. Formed by televangelist Pat Robertson and led in its heyday by lobbyist and U.S. Senate hopeful Ralph Reed, the CC will--for the first time--be led by a pastor. Additionally, by moving its offices from Washington, D.C., to Central Florida, the organization signals a not-so-subtle shift from a lobbying group that speaks on behalf of the religious right to a church-focused organization that equips local congregations to effect social and political change.
As the Orlando Sentinel notes, although he is against abortion and gay marriage, Hunter also opposes the death penalty. The article cites Hunter's involvement with the Evangelical Environmental Network and his recent book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird, as indicators of his political unpredictability. This has led observers to interpret Hunter's appointment as a signal of the "broadening" of the Christian Coalition's base of issues. There is even consternation from some who feel the CC will risk losing consensus by focusing on issues that not everyone can agree on, such as global warming.
The problem is that the opponents of this "broadening" of the CC have inadvertently pointed out the very reason the CC (and organizations like it) are in such desperate need of reform: They are already too broad--so broad that they have made a practice of championing issues of marginal consequence to biblical Christianity. Don't believe me? Among other things, the CC has:
* Expressed disappointment with senators who opposed the flag amendment
* Supported the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act*
* Supported the U.N. Reform Act of 2005
* Supported Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA)
* Supported making permanent the 2001-2003 tax cuts
Please understand: I am not criticizing the validity of any of the above positions--I would support most of them. I'm simply questioning whether they should be embraced as "Christian" positions--particularly when this same organization is deafeningly silent on issues on which a biblical worldview requires extensive reflection, such as: creation care, torture, the death penalty, war, poverty, affirmative action, AIDS and human trafficking.
Sure, the topics above are politically divisive at times--and pose real challenges for consensus building. But the beauty of an organization like the CC is that it can afford to be "narrow" in its thrust--driven not by political vagaries or partisan loyalty, but by the unflinching demands of a biblical worldview. Anything less exhibits a disingenuous lack of balance, limiting our ability to speak prophetically to both sides of the aisle and reinforcing the impression that one party has evangelicals in its pocket--and vice versa.
Simply put, we've become too predictable. Joel Hunter's appointment to the Christian Coalition brings a fresh breeze of unpredictability that will scare some but may engage evangelicals who are pro-life and pro-marriage--but who know that biblical values don't stop there.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 6, 2006
The [New] Christian Coalition
Isn’t the Christian right’s agenda already too broad?
Over the weekend it was announced that Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed (a congregation of 7,000 in the Orlando area) has been selected to serve as president of the Christian Coalition of America (CC).
The organization has struggled in recent years with a shrinking constituency, mounting debt and the recent departure of several state chapters. Formed by televangelist Pat Robertson and led in its heyday by lobbyist and U.S. Senate hopeful Ralph Reed, the CC will--for the first time--be led by a pastor. Additionally, by moving its offices from Washington, D.C., to Central Florida, the organization signals a not-so-subtle shift from a lobbying group that speaks on behalf of the religious right to a church-focused organization that equips local congregations to effect social and political change.
As the Orlando Sentinel notes, although he is against abortion and gay marriage, Hunter also opposes the death penalty. The article cites Hunter's involvement with the Evangelical Environmental Network and his recent book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird, as indicators of his political unpredictability. This has led observers to interpret Hunter's appointment as a signal of the "broadening" of the Christian Coalition's base of issues. There is even consternation from some who feel the CC will risk losing consensus by focusing on issues that not everyone can agree on, such as global warming.
The problem is that the opponents of this "broadening" of the CC have inadvertently pointed out the very reason the CC (and organizations like it) are in such desperate need of reform: They are already too broad--so broad that they have made a practice of championing issues of marginal consequence to biblical Christianity. Don't believe me? Among other things, the CC has:
* Expressed disappointment with senators who opposed the flag amendment
* Supported the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act*
* Supported the U.N. Reform Act of 2005
* Supported Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA)
* Supported making permanent the 2001-2003 tax cuts
Please understand: I am not criticizing the validity of any of the above positions--I would support most of them. I'm simply questioning whether they should be embraced as "Christian" positions--particularly when this same organization is deafeningly silent on issues on which a biblical worldview requires extensive reflection, such as: creation care, torture, the death penalty, war, poverty, affirmative action, AIDS and human trafficking.
Sure, the topics above are politically divisive at times--and pose real challenges for consensus building. But the beauty of an organization like the CC is that it can afford to be "narrow" in its thrust--driven not by political vagaries or partisan loyalty, but by the unflinching demands of a biblical worldview. Anything less exhibits a disingenuous lack of balance, limiting our ability to speak prophetically to both sides of the aisle and reinforcing the impression that one party has evangelicals in its pocket--and vice versa.
Simply put, we've become too predictable. Joel Hunter's appointment to the Christian Coalition brings a fresh breeze of unpredictability that will scare some but may engage evangelicals who are pro-life and pro-marriage--but who know that biblical values don't stop there.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 6, 2006
Over the weekend it was announced that Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed (a congregation of 7,000 in the Orlando area) has been selected to serve as president of the Christian Coalition of America (CC).
The organization has struggled in recent years with a shrinking constituency, mounting debt and the recent departure of several state chapters. Formed by televangelist Pat Robertson and led in its heyday by lobbyist and U.S. Senate hopeful Ralph Reed, the CC will--for the first time--be led by a pastor. Additionally, by moving its offices from Washington, D.C., to Central Florida, the organization signals a not-so-subtle shift from a lobbying group that speaks on behalf of the religious right to a church-focused organization that equips local congregations to effect social and political change.
As the Orlando Sentinel notes, although he is against abortion and gay marriage, Hunter also opposes the death penalty. The article cites Hunter's involvement with the Evangelical Environmental Network and his recent book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird, as indicators of his political unpredictability. This has led observers to interpret Hunter's appointment as a signal of the "broadening" of the Christian Coalition's base of issues. There is even consternation from some who feel the CC will risk losing consensus by focusing on issues that not everyone can agree on, such as global warming.
The problem is that the opponents of this "broadening" of the CC have inadvertently pointed out the very reason the CC (and organizations like it) are in such desperate need of reform: They are already too broad--so broad that they have made a practice of championing issues of marginal consequence to biblical Christianity. Don't believe me? Among other things, the CC has:
* Expressed disappointment with senators who opposed the flag amendment
* Supported the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act*
* Supported the U.N. Reform Act of 2005
* Supported Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA)
* Supported making permanent the 2001-2003 tax cuts
Please understand: I am not criticizing the validity of any of the above positions--I would support most of them. I'm simply questioning whether they should be embraced as "Christian" positions--particularly when this same organization is deafeningly silent on issues on which a biblical worldview requires extensive reflection, such as: creation care, torture, the death penalty, war, poverty, affirmative action, AIDS and human trafficking.
Sure, the topics above are politically divisive at times--and pose real challenges for consensus building. But the beauty of an organization like the CC is that it can afford to be "narrow" in its thrust--driven not by political vagaries or partisan loyalty, but by the unflinching demands of a biblical worldview. Anything less exhibits a disingenuous lack of balance, limiting our ability to speak prophetically to both sides of the aisle and reinforcing the impression that one party has evangelicals in its pocket--and vice versa.
Simply put, we've become too predictable. Joel Hunter's appointment to the Christian Coalition brings a fresh breeze of unpredictability that will scare some but may engage evangelicals who are pro-life and pro-marriage--but who know that biblical values don't stop there.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
October 6, 2006
28 September 2006
The One-Eyed Preacher
Is there any hope for Christian TV?
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
A chain-smoking TV journalist named Edward R. Murrow leveled these words against the medium that made him the most trusted news anchor of the 20th century. For Murrow, television was a neutral medium--holding the potential of both grandeur and debasement. Several decades later, Neil Postman went a step further in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, arguing that television is a trivializing medium--one that does not merely deceive us, but inoculates us to the truth.
If so, we must ask whether television is a worthwhile medium for disseminating the gospel in 21st-century America. For many, the jury’s still out. Christian TV producer Phil Cooke generated an interesting response when he recently asked the question on his blog, “What will it take to fix Christian television?”
Though many criticize it for the scandalous fund-raising techniques it takes to keep some programs on the air, this was not the main complaint against Christian TV voiced in the informal poll and accompanying comments. The No. 1 problem was a perceived “lack of creativity.” Blog commenters cited the fact that most Christian programming is a monologue (preaching and teaching), in stark contrast to the interactive entertainment that is increasingly popular on mainstream TV.
Add to this the declining appetite for TV news (which shares Christian TV’s “monologic” qualities)—particularly among younger viewers. As a 2004 study from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press points out, only “a third of the public (34 percent) regularly watches one of the nightly network news broadcasts on CBS, ABC or NBC. The total audience for these broadcasts shrunk by about half between 1993 and 2000.”
But I don't think a lack of creativity or growing competition from secular channels are Christian TV's biggest problem. The biggest problem is a general decline in trust that people have for mainstream media outlets—particularly TV. Speaking from my own experience, I'm actually less likely to believe something once I've seen it on TV. Like many, I prefer to pick and choose from a combination of media sources—online, radio and TV—and then make my own judgments.
So, if TV in general has lost its “cultural capital”, what does that mean for Christian TV? How do you communicate a transcendent message through a medium that everyone associates with triviality, consumerism and even deception. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." If no one takes the medium seriously anymore, what does that say about the message?
For me, it emphasizes the importance of the local church and personal evangelism. The "one-eyed preacher" in our living rooms will never replace the flesh-and-blood pastors who invest their lives in their congregations on a daily basis. Anyone who would subcontract his spiritual health--or the fate of the lost--to the same machine that brought ALF into our homes should probably have his head examined.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 28, 2006
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
A chain-smoking TV journalist named Edward R. Murrow leveled these words against the medium that made him the most trusted news anchor of the 20th century. For Murrow, television was a neutral medium--holding the potential of both grandeur and debasement. Several decades later, Neil Postman went a step further in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, arguing that television is a trivializing medium--one that does not merely deceive us, but inoculates us to the truth.
If so, we must ask whether television is a worthwhile medium for disseminating the gospel in 21st-century America. For many, the jury’s still out. Christian TV producer Phil Cooke generated an interesting response when he recently asked the question on his blog, “What will it take to fix Christian television?”
Though many criticize it for the scandalous fund-raising techniques it takes to keep some programs on the air, this was not the main complaint against Christian TV voiced in the informal poll and accompanying comments. The No. 1 problem was a perceived “lack of creativity.” Blog commenters cited the fact that most Christian programming is a monologue (preaching and teaching), in stark contrast to the interactive entertainment that is increasingly popular on mainstream TV.
Add to this the declining appetite for TV news (which shares Christian TV’s “monologic” qualities)—particularly among younger viewers. As a 2004 study from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press points out, only “a third of the public (34 percent) regularly watches one of the nightly network news broadcasts on CBS, ABC or NBC. The total audience for these broadcasts shrunk by about half between 1993 and 2000.”
But I don't think a lack of creativity or growing competition from secular channels are Christian TV's biggest problem. The biggest problem is a general decline in trust that people have for mainstream media outlets—particularly TV. Speaking from my own experience, I'm actually less likely to believe something once I've seen it on TV. Like many, I prefer to pick and choose from a combination of media sources—online, radio and TV—and then make my own judgments.
So, if TV in general has lost its “cultural capital”, what does that mean for Christian TV? How do you communicate a transcendent message through a medium that everyone associates with triviality, consumerism and even deception. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." If no one takes the medium seriously anymore, what does that say about the message?
For me, it emphasizes the importance of the local church and personal evangelism. The "one-eyed preacher" in our living rooms will never replace the flesh-and-blood pastors who invest their lives in their congregations on a daily basis. Anyone who would subcontract his spiritual health--or the fate of the lost--to the same machine that brought ALF into our homes should probably have his head examined.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 28, 2006
The One-Eyed Preacher
Is there any hope for Christian TV?
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
A chain-smoking TV journalist named Edward R. Murrow leveled these words against the medium that made him the most trusted news anchor of the 20th century. For Murrow, television was a neutral medium--holding the potential of both grandeur and debasement. Several decades later, Neil Postman went a step further in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, arguing that television is a trivializing medium--one that does not merely deceive us, but inoculates us to the truth.
If so, we must ask whether television is a worthwhile medium for disseminating the gospel in 21st-century America. For many, the jury’s still out. Christian TV producer Phil Cooke generated an interesting response when he recently asked the question on his blog, “What will it take to fix Christian television?”
Though many criticize it for the scandalous fund-raising techniques it takes to keep some programs on the air, this was not the main complaint against Christian TV voiced in the informal poll and accompanying comments. The No. 1 problem was a perceived “lack of creativity.” Blog commenters cited the fact that most Christian programming is a monologue (preaching and teaching), in stark contrast to the interactive entertainment that is increasingly popular on mainstream TV.
Add to this the declining appetite for TV news (which shares Christian TV’s “monologic” qualities)—particularly among younger viewers. As a 2004 study from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press points out, only “a third of the public (34 percent) regularly watches one of the nightly network news broadcasts on CBS, ABC or NBC. The total audience for these broadcasts shrunk by about half between 1993 and 2000.”
But I don't think a lack of creativity or growing competition from secular channels are Christian TV's biggest problem. The biggest problem is a general decline in trust that people have for mainstream media outlets—particularly TV. Speaking from my own experience, I'm actually less likely to believe something once I've seen it on TV. Like many, I prefer to pick and choose from a combination of media sources—online, radio and TV—and then make my own judgments.
So, if TV in general has lost its “cultural capital”, what does that mean for Christian TV? How do you communicate a transcendent message through a medium that everyone associates with triviality, consumerism and even deception. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." If no one takes the medium seriously anymore, what does that say about the message?
For me, it emphasizes the importance of the local church and personal evangelism. The "one-eyed preacher" in our living rooms will never replace the flesh-and-blood pastors who invest their lives in their congregations on a daily basis. Anyone who would subcontract his spiritual health--or the fate of the lost--to the same machine that brought ALF into our homes should probably have his head examined.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 28, 2006
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
A chain-smoking TV journalist named Edward R. Murrow leveled these words against the medium that made him the most trusted news anchor of the 20th century. For Murrow, television was a neutral medium--holding the potential of both grandeur and debasement. Several decades later, Neil Postman went a step further in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, arguing that television is a trivializing medium--one that does not merely deceive us, but inoculates us to the truth.
If so, we must ask whether television is a worthwhile medium for disseminating the gospel in 21st-century America. For many, the jury’s still out. Christian TV producer Phil Cooke generated an interesting response when he recently asked the question on his blog, “What will it take to fix Christian television?”
Though many criticize it for the scandalous fund-raising techniques it takes to keep some programs on the air, this was not the main complaint against Christian TV voiced in the informal poll and accompanying comments. The No. 1 problem was a perceived “lack of creativity.” Blog commenters cited the fact that most Christian programming is a monologue (preaching and teaching), in stark contrast to the interactive entertainment that is increasingly popular on mainstream TV.
Add to this the declining appetite for TV news (which shares Christian TV’s “monologic” qualities)—particularly among younger viewers. As a 2004 study from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press points out, only “a third of the public (34 percent) regularly watches one of the nightly network news broadcasts on CBS, ABC or NBC. The total audience for these broadcasts shrunk by about half between 1993 and 2000.”
But I don't think a lack of creativity or growing competition from secular channels are Christian TV's biggest problem. The biggest problem is a general decline in trust that people have for mainstream media outlets—particularly TV. Speaking from my own experience, I'm actually less likely to believe something once I've seen it on TV. Like many, I prefer to pick and choose from a combination of media sources—online, radio and TV—and then make my own judgments.
So, if TV in general has lost its “cultural capital”, what does that mean for Christian TV? How do you communicate a transcendent message through a medium that everyone associates with triviality, consumerism and even deception. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." If no one takes the medium seriously anymore, what does that say about the message?
For me, it emphasizes the importance of the local church and personal evangelism. The "one-eyed preacher" in our living rooms will never replace the flesh-and-blood pastors who invest their lives in their congregations on a daily basis. Anyone who would subcontract his spiritual health--or the fate of the lost--to the same machine that brought ALF into our homes should probably have his head examined.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 28, 2006
11 September 2006
Dear Word-Faith Friends,
Why a religious movement that’s gained cultural prominence should take a second look at {{MORE}}
You began as a fringe movement within the Pentecostal community and made barely a ripple in the public consciousness until a handful of your proponents were exposed for financial and sexual indiscretions in the '80s. In the '90s, you faced continuous scrutiny and criticism from heresy hunters and theological watchdog groups, and several books were written deconstructing your supposed sub-orthodox doctrine.
But now, in the new millennium, you can claim victory. A cover story in the September 18 issue of TIME magazine explores your movement, asking, "Does God Want You to Be Rich?" A poll cited in the same issue of the magazine found that 17 percent of Christians surveyed identified themselves with the Word-Faith movement, and 61 percent said they believe God wants people to be prosperous.
Of the four largest megachurches in the country, three (Lakewood Church, Houston, pastored by Joel Osteen; The Potter's House, Dallas, pastored by T.D. Jakes; and World Changers Church, Atlanta, pastored by Creflo Dollar) preach prosperity theology. And that doesn't include other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders such as Randy and Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Eddie Long--all of whom have garnered substantial influence outside the church.
Once relegated to self-publishing your books and speaking at regional conferences and a handful of Bible institutes, you now negotiate seven-figure book contracts with New York publishers, you dominate Christian television and you have fewer critics than you did in the '80s and '90s when hardly anyone outside the church knew about you.
Simply put, you effectively adapted your teaching methods and persona to be more appealing to a broader audience. You distanced yourselves from obvious hucksters. You embraced the language of empowerment rather than greed, using terms such as "destiny", "favor", "promotion" and "increase". You harnessed media with sophistication and tact, often eschewing the pulpit theatrics of your Pentecostal forebears.
Yet your message remained consistent, and its simplicity resonated with a culture disillusioned with a God who seemed to be disturbingly unpredictable, prayers that seemed to go unanswered and a version of Christianity that seemed to have little room for three of the most venerated deities in the Western pantheon: money, health and self-fulfillment.
So, the question for you is this: Have your teachings been accepted because they have been weighed in the balances and found to be biblically sound, or because they happen to be compatible with the narcissistic longings of 21st-century Americans? You were prophetic as you reintroduced us to a God who actually hears our prayers and wants to answer them ... when you reminded us of the ability (and desire) of God to heal people of their physical infirmities ... when you encouraged us to be more liberal in giving and reminded us of the principles of reaping and sowing.
But the truth remains that your simplistic formulas for wealth transfer, divine promotion and supernatural health don't always ring true in a world where the majority of Christians in non-Western nations live in poverty. You have yet to wrestle through a biblically-coherent theology of suffering and the role it plays in a faithful Christian's life. And some of you are confused as to whether Jesus wants us to take up our cross and follow Him or discover the champion within ourselves.
Like every religious movement, you've adapted to the demands of changing times. Now it's time to adapt to the demands of an unchanging Word--to embrace the value of sacrifice, as well as success. Our culture is crying for nothing less than the same radical faith that Jesus exhibited when He assumed the identity of an impoverished, unknown, peasant-carpenter to show us what God looks like.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 11, 2006
You began as a fringe movement within the Pentecostal community and made barely a ripple in the public consciousness until a handful of your proponents were exposed for financial and sexual indiscretions in the '80s. In the '90s, you faced continuous scrutiny and criticism from heresy hunters and theological watchdog groups, and several books were written deconstructing your supposed sub-orthodox doctrine.
But now, in the new millennium, you can claim victory. A cover story in the September 18 issue of TIME magazine explores your movement, asking, "Does God Want You to Be Rich?" A poll cited in the same issue of the magazine found that 17 percent of Christians surveyed identified themselves with the Word-Faith movement, and 61 percent said they believe God wants people to be prosperous.
Of the four largest megachurches in the country, three (Lakewood Church, Houston, pastored by Joel Osteen; The Potter's House, Dallas, pastored by T.D. Jakes; and World Changers Church, Atlanta, pastored by Creflo Dollar) preach prosperity theology. And that doesn't include other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders such as Randy and Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Eddie Long--all of whom have garnered substantial influence outside the church.
Once relegated to self-publishing your books and speaking at regional conferences and a handful of Bible institutes, you now negotiate seven-figure book contracts with New York publishers, you dominate Christian television and you have fewer critics than you did in the '80s and '90s when hardly anyone outside the church knew about you.
Simply put, you effectively adapted your teaching methods and persona to be more appealing to a broader audience. You distanced yourselves from obvious hucksters. You embraced the language of empowerment rather than greed, using terms such as "destiny", "favor", "promotion" and "increase". You harnessed media with sophistication and tact, often eschewing the pulpit theatrics of your Pentecostal forebears.
Yet your message remained consistent, and its simplicity resonated with a culture disillusioned with a God who seemed to be disturbingly unpredictable, prayers that seemed to go unanswered and a version of Christianity that seemed to have little room for three of the most venerated deities in the Western pantheon: money, health and self-fulfillment.
So, the question for you is this: Have your teachings been accepted because they have been weighed in the balances and found to be biblically sound, or because they happen to be compatible with the narcissistic longings of 21st-century Americans? You were prophetic as you reintroduced us to a God who actually hears our prayers and wants to answer them ... when you reminded us of the ability (and desire) of God to heal people of their physical infirmities ... when you encouraged us to be more liberal in giving and reminded us of the principles of reaping and sowing.
But the truth remains that your simplistic formulas for wealth transfer, divine promotion and supernatural health don't always ring true in a world where the majority of Christians in non-Western nations live in poverty. You have yet to wrestle through a biblically-coherent theology of suffering and the role it plays in a faithful Christian's life. And some of you are confused as to whether Jesus wants us to take up our cross and follow Him or discover the champion within ourselves.
Like every religious movement, you've adapted to the demands of changing times. Now it's time to adapt to the demands of an unchanging Word--to embrace the value of sacrifice, as well as success. Our culture is crying for nothing less than the same radical faith that Jesus exhibited when He assumed the identity of an impoverished, unknown, peasant-carpenter to show us what God looks like.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 11, 2006
Dear Word-Faith Friends,
Why a religious movement that’s gained cultural prominence should take a second look at {{MORE}}
You began as a fringe movement within the Pentecostal community and made barely a ripple in the public consciousness until a handful of your proponents were exposed for financial and sexual indiscretions in the '80s. In the '90s, you faced continuous scrutiny and criticism from heresy hunters and theological watchdog groups, and several books were written deconstructing your supposed sub-orthodox doctrine.
But now, in the new millennium, you can claim victory. A cover story in the September 18 issue of TIME magazine explores your movement, asking, "Does God Want You to Be Rich?" A poll cited in the same issue of the magazine found that 17 percent of Christians surveyed identified themselves with the Word-Faith movement, and 61 percent said they believe God wants people to be prosperous.
Of the four largest megachurches in the country, three (Lakewood Church, Houston, pastored by Joel Osteen; The Potter's House, Dallas, pastored by T.D. Jakes; and World Changers Church, Atlanta, pastored by Creflo Dollar) preach prosperity theology. And that doesn't include other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders such as Randy and Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Eddie Long--all of whom have garnered substantial influence outside the church.
Once relegated to self-publishing your books and speaking at regional conferences and a handful of Bible institutes, you now negotiate seven-figure book contracts with New York publishers, you dominate Christian television and you have fewer critics than you did in the '80s and '90s when hardly anyone outside the church knew about you.
Simply put, you effectively adapted your teaching methods and persona to be more appealing to a broader audience. You distanced yourselves from obvious hucksters. You embraced the language of empowerment rather than greed, using terms such as "destiny", "favor", "promotion" and "increase". You harnessed media with sophistication and tact, often eschewing the pulpit theatrics of your Pentecostal forebears.
Yet your message remained consistent, and its simplicity resonated with a culture disillusioned with a God who seemed to be disturbingly unpredictable, prayers that seemed to go unanswered and a version of Christianity that seemed to have little room for three of the most venerated deities in the Western pantheon: money, health and self-fulfillment.
So, the question for you is this: Have your teachings been accepted because they have been weighed in the balances and found to be biblically sound, or because they happen to be compatible with the narcissistic longings of 21st-century Americans? You were prophetic as you reintroduced us to a God who actually hears our prayers and wants to answer them ... when you reminded us of the ability (and desire) of God to heal people of their physical infirmities ... when you encouraged us to be more liberal in giving and reminded us of the principles of reaping and sowing.
But the truth remains that your simplistic formulas for wealth transfer, divine promotion and supernatural health don't always ring true in a world where the majority of Christians in non-Western nations live in poverty. You have yet to wrestle through a biblically-coherent theology of suffering and the role it plays in a faithful Christian's life. And some of you are confused as to whether Jesus wants us to take up our cross and follow Him or discover the champion within ourselves.
Like every religious movement, you've adapted to the demands of changing times. Now it's time to adapt to the demands of an unchanging Word--to embrace the value of sacrifice, as well as success. Our culture is crying for nothing less than the same radical faith that Jesus exhibited when He assumed the identity of an impoverished, unknown, peasant-carpenter to show us what God looks like.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 11, 2006
You began as a fringe movement within the Pentecostal community and made barely a ripple in the public consciousness until a handful of your proponents were exposed for financial and sexual indiscretions in the '80s. In the '90s, you faced continuous scrutiny and criticism from heresy hunters and theological watchdog groups, and several books were written deconstructing your supposed sub-orthodox doctrine.
But now, in the new millennium, you can claim victory. A cover story in the September 18 issue of TIME magazine explores your movement, asking, "Does God Want You to Be Rich?" A poll cited in the same issue of the magazine found that 17 percent of Christians surveyed identified themselves with the Word-Faith movement, and 61 percent said they believe God wants people to be prosperous.
Of the four largest megachurches in the country, three (Lakewood Church, Houston, pastored by Joel Osteen; The Potter's House, Dallas, pastored by T.D. Jakes; and World Changers Church, Atlanta, pastored by Creflo Dollar) preach prosperity theology. And that doesn't include other high-profile pastors and ministry leaders such as Randy and Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Eddie Long--all of whom have garnered substantial influence outside the church.
Once relegated to self-publishing your books and speaking at regional conferences and a handful of Bible institutes, you now negotiate seven-figure book contracts with New York publishers, you dominate Christian television and you have fewer critics than you did in the '80s and '90s when hardly anyone outside the church knew about you.
Simply put, you effectively adapted your teaching methods and persona to be more appealing to a broader audience. You distanced yourselves from obvious hucksters. You embraced the language of empowerment rather than greed, using terms such as "destiny", "favor", "promotion" and "increase". You harnessed media with sophistication and tact, often eschewing the pulpit theatrics of your Pentecostal forebears.
Yet your message remained consistent, and its simplicity resonated with a culture disillusioned with a God who seemed to be disturbingly unpredictable, prayers that seemed to go unanswered and a version of Christianity that seemed to have little room for three of the most venerated deities in the Western pantheon: money, health and self-fulfillment.
So, the question for you is this: Have your teachings been accepted because they have been weighed in the balances and found to be biblically sound, or because they happen to be compatible with the narcissistic longings of 21st-century Americans? You were prophetic as you reintroduced us to a God who actually hears our prayers and wants to answer them ... when you reminded us of the ability (and desire) of God to heal people of their physical infirmities ... when you encouraged us to be more liberal in giving and reminded us of the principles of reaping and sowing.
But the truth remains that your simplistic formulas for wealth transfer, divine promotion and supernatural health don't always ring true in a world where the majority of Christians in non-Western nations live in poverty. You have yet to wrestle through a biblically-coherent theology of suffering and the role it plays in a faithful Christian's life. And some of you are confused as to whether Jesus wants us to take up our cross and follow Him or discover the champion within ourselves.
Like every religious movement, you've adapted to the demands of changing times. Now it's time to adapt to the demands of an unchanging Word--to embrace the value of sacrifice, as well as success. Our culture is crying for nothing less than the same radical faith that Jesus exhibited when He assumed the identity of an impoverished, unknown, peasant-carpenter to show us what God looks like.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
September 11, 2006
24 July 2006
Apocalypse Now
Is it really the end of the world as we know it?
It would seem foolhardy to suggest that we're not living in the last days, but some of us are itching for Armageddon. True, world events seem to be escalating toward a climax. But then again, they have been for 2,000 years (see Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3, etc.). I'm sure those believers who endured the fall of Jerusalem, the black plague, the inquisition, the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima were watching the second hand of the doomsday clock with particular interest.
I must confess: I grew up hearing the imagery of Armageddon--imagery of the variety that I was forbidden from watching on television or in the movies. Horses wading in rivers of blood beneath a mushroom cloud with Larry Norman singing "I wish we'd all been ready" in the background. Scary stuff. But I was comforted by the assurance that I would be watching these events unfold from the safety of Heaven.
Since then, my eschatology has gone through a series of adjustments. I became aware of believers in China wasting away for their faith in Maoist "re-education camps." I heard stories of God-fearing Sudanese families separated and sold into slavery by Islamic extremists. I helped a destitute Sri Lankan pastor distribute tsunami aid to Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in his town--only to hear several months later that he was beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob of angry Buddhists. Needless to say, the prospect of skipping tribulation now seemed a little self-serving at best.
It would seem foolhardy to suggest that we're not living in the last days, but some of us are itching for Armageddon. True, world events seem to be escalating toward a climax. But then again, they have been for 2,000 years (see Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3, etc.). I'm sure those believers who endured the fall of Jerusalem, the black plague, the inquisition, the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima were watching the second hand of the doomsday clock with particular interest.
I must confess: I grew up hearing the imagery of Armageddon--imagery of the variety that I was forbidden from watching on television or in the movies. Horses wading in rivers of blood beneath a mushroom cloud with Larry Norman singing "I wish we'd all been ready" in the background. Scary stuff. But I was comforted by the assurance that I would be watching these events unfold from the safety of Heaven.
Since then, my eschatology has gone through a series of adjustments. I became aware of believers in China wasting away for their faith in Maoist "re-education camps." I heard stories of God-fearing Sudanese families separated and sold into slavery by Islamic extremists. I helped a destitute Sri Lankan pastor distribute tsunami aid to Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in his town--only to hear several months later that he was beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob of angry Buddhists. Needless to say, the prospect of skipping tribulation now seemed a little self-serving at best.
Unfortunately, our Western versions of eschatology have bred some unhealthy extremes. Some of us are nearly giddy about the bloody precursors to the Second Coming. If Jesus warned that there would be "wars and rumors of wars" before His return, why would we want to delay His arrival by seeking peace? Others are convinced that the church will eventually so infiltrate society that Jesus will return to a world already conquered by His people. This group seems unaware that those who overcame the beast did so with their blood, not at the ballot box.
Now, I'm not delusional enough to think that all evangelicals can unite under the banner of one eschatological perspective. However, in the eyes of the secular world (and many evangelicals like myself), the two options of dominionism and escapism leave something to be desired and demonstrate an embarrassing level of disunity on a very relevant topic of discussion.
Even more bizarre are high-profile leaders who attempt to embrace both perspectives simultaneously. The other day, I heard a television preacher discuss the nearness of the rapture and tribulation and, minutes later, argue for the reinstatement of prayer in public school and the erection of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. Unfortunately, those possessing a nuanced opinion somewhere between these two views rarely find themselves in front of a microphone or TV camera. Go figure.
My purpose for bringing up this subject was not to poke fun at the "eschatologically confused" (Come to think of it, I feel pretty confused myself when it comes to this tricky topic), but to challenge pastors and church leaders to tackle the subject on a local level with a winsome and life-giving approach. The Second Coming is not something to be feared and loathed--or gleefully anticipated for the destruction of our enemies. It's not an evangelistic bludgeon or a tool for the opportunistic to promote their political agenda. It is the V-Day to the cross's D-Day, the fulfillment of God's promise to dwell with His people, wipe every tear from their eyes and finish making all things new.
Sure, in modern parlance, John was freaked out when he saw what was to come, but not too freaked out to say, "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!"
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 24, 2006
Apocalypse Now
Is it really the end of the world as we know it?
It would seem foolhardy to suggest that we're not living in the last days, but some of us are itching for Armageddon. True, world events seem to be escalating toward a climax. But then again, they have been for 2,000 years (see Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3, etc.). I'm sure those believers who endured the fall of Jerusalem, the black plague, the inquisition, the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima were watching the second hand of the doomsday clock with particular interest.
I must confess: I grew up hearing the imagery of Armageddon--imagery of the variety that I was forbidden from watching on television or in the movies. Horses wading in rivers of blood beneath a mushroom cloud with Larry Norman singing "I wish we'd all been ready" in the background. Scary stuff. But I was comforted by the assurance that I would be watching these events unfold from the safety of Heaven.
Since then, my eschatology has gone through a series of adjustments. I became aware of believers in China wasting away for their faith in Maoist "re-education camps." I heard stories of God-fearing Sudanese families separated and sold into slavery by Islamic extremists. I helped a destitute Sri Lankan pastor distribute tsunami aid to Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in his town--only to hear several months later that he was beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob of angry Buddhists. Needless to say, the prospect of skipping tribulation now seemed a little self-serving at best.
It would seem foolhardy to suggest that we're not living in the last days, but some of us are itching for Armageddon. True, world events seem to be escalating toward a climax. But then again, they have been for 2,000 years (see Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3, etc.). I'm sure those believers who endured the fall of Jerusalem, the black plague, the inquisition, the Holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima were watching the second hand of the doomsday clock with particular interest.
I must confess: I grew up hearing the imagery of Armageddon--imagery of the variety that I was forbidden from watching on television or in the movies. Horses wading in rivers of blood beneath a mushroom cloud with Larry Norman singing "I wish we'd all been ready" in the background. Scary stuff. But I was comforted by the assurance that I would be watching these events unfold from the safety of Heaven.
Since then, my eschatology has gone through a series of adjustments. I became aware of believers in China wasting away for their faith in Maoist "re-education camps." I heard stories of God-fearing Sudanese families separated and sold into slavery by Islamic extremists. I helped a destitute Sri Lankan pastor distribute tsunami aid to Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in his town--only to hear several months later that he was beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob of angry Buddhists. Needless to say, the prospect of skipping tribulation now seemed a little self-serving at best.
Unfortunately, our Western versions of eschatology have bred some unhealthy extremes. Some of us are nearly giddy about the bloody precursors to the Second Coming. If Jesus warned that there would be "wars and rumors of wars" before His return, why would we want to delay His arrival by seeking peace? Others are convinced that the church will eventually so infiltrate society that Jesus will return to a world already conquered by His people. This group seems unaware that those who overcame the beast did so with their blood, not at the ballot box.
Now, I'm not delusional enough to think that all evangelicals can unite under the banner of one eschatological perspective. However, in the eyes of the secular world (and many evangelicals like myself), the two options of dominionism and escapism leave something to be desired and demonstrate an embarrassing level of disunity on a very relevant topic of discussion.
Even more bizarre are high-profile leaders who attempt to embrace both perspectives simultaneously. The other day, I heard a television preacher discuss the nearness of the rapture and tribulation and, minutes later, argue for the reinstatement of prayer in public school and the erection of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. Unfortunately, those possessing a nuanced opinion somewhere between these two views rarely find themselves in front of a microphone or TV camera. Go figure.
My purpose for bringing up this subject was not to poke fun at the "eschatologically confused" (Come to think of it, I feel pretty confused myself when it comes to this tricky topic), but to challenge pastors and church leaders to tackle the subject on a local level with a winsome and life-giving approach. The Second Coming is not something to be feared and loathed--or gleefully anticipated for the destruction of our enemies. It's not an evangelistic bludgeon or a tool for the opportunistic to promote their political agenda. It is the V-Day to the cross's D-Day, the fulfillment of God's promise to dwell with His people, wipe every tear from their eyes and finish making all things new.
Sure, in modern parlance, John was freaked out when he saw what was to come, but not too freaked out to say, "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!"
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 24, 2006
19 July 2006
Down With Religion?
"It's not a religion. It's a relationship." How many times have we heard that declaration describing one's faith. I understand the rationale behind it. "Religion" is the disparaging word used to describe either heartless nominalism or brittle legalism--both forms of godliness that lack power. I agree that we need to draw a distinction between religious activity and authentic relational faith, but that's not always how it comes across. Instead, we use the phrase to create a class of hyper-spiritual-mega-strike-force Christians, infinitely more real than those dry, stick-in-the-mud Methodists and Presbyterians who just care about religion.
In a recent interview on CNN, a proponent of the "laughing revival" suggested that religion is "like a drug." "It wants to beat you down and make you dependent upon it," he explained. "If I can make you feel guilty, you'll come back next week." Ironically, he didn't seem to notice the similarity in the throngs of people who travel thousands of miles and attend weekly for a sip of the self-described "Holy Ghost Bartender's" addictive brew.
For me, it's just the opposite. Religion is what reminds me that being a follower of Christ is not merely about showing up on Sunday for a Holy Ghost fix. Religion is what I do Monday through Saturday. Like marriage is to my relationship with my wife, religion is to my relationship with my God.
Since we're on the marriage parallel, imagine a husband telling his wife, "It's not about marriage, Baby. It's about the relationship."
Uh ... good luck with that, buddy.
No, marriage (like religion) is the sum total of the commitments, words, thoughts and actions that reveal that there is in fact a relationship. Religion isn't a dirty word; it's the way we live out our relationship with God--the sum total of prayer, study, fellowship, worship, evangelism and social action that give dynamic shape to an otherwise ethereal concept. This is probably what James [a man so religious, his knees were purported to be calloused like that of a camel from the time he spent in prayer] was thinking of when he described "pure religion" as both personal piety and social engagement.
Whether the solemn reflection of the eucharist or the ecstatic exuberance of holy laughter, both are religious experiences that may--or may not--reflect an authentic relationship. Sure, the word religion may have fallen upon hard times, but that doesn't mean it's time to discard it. Let's redefine it, teach it, model it and reclaim its true significance in a world where the "pure religion" James talks about has all but lost its meaning.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
In a recent interview on CNN, a proponent of the "laughing revival" suggested that religion is "like a drug." "It wants to beat you down and make you dependent upon it," he explained. "If I can make you feel guilty, you'll come back next week." Ironically, he didn't seem to notice the similarity in the throngs of people who travel thousands of miles and attend weekly for a sip of the self-described "Holy Ghost Bartender's" addictive brew.
For me, it's just the opposite. Religion is what reminds me that being a follower of Christ is not merely about showing up on Sunday for a Holy Ghost fix. Religion is what I do Monday through Saturday. Like marriage is to my relationship with my wife, religion is to my relationship with my God.
Since we're on the marriage parallel, imagine a husband telling his wife, "It's not about marriage, Baby. It's about the relationship."
Uh ... good luck with that, buddy.
No, marriage (like religion) is the sum total of the commitments, words, thoughts and actions that reveal that there is in fact a relationship. Religion isn't a dirty word; it's the way we live out our relationship with God--the sum total of prayer, study, fellowship, worship, evangelism and social action that give dynamic shape to an otherwise ethereal concept. This is probably what James [a man so religious, his knees were purported to be calloused like that of a camel from the time he spent in prayer] was thinking of when he described "pure religion" as both personal piety and social engagement.
Whether the solemn reflection of the eucharist or the ecstatic exuberance of holy laughter, both are religious experiences that may--or may not--reflect an authentic relationship. Sure, the word religion may have fallen upon hard times, but that doesn't mean it's time to discard it. Let's redefine it, teach it, model it and reclaim its true significance in a world where the "pure religion" James talks about has all but lost its meaning.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
Down With Religion?
"It's not a religion. It's a relationship." How many times have we heard that declaration describing one's faith. I understand the rationale behind it. "Religion" is the disparaging word used to describe either heartless nominalism or brittle legalism--both forms of godliness that lack power. I agree that we need to draw a distinction between religious activity and authentic relational faith, but that's not always how it comes across. Instead, we use the phrase to create a class of hyper-spiritual-mega-strike-force Christians, infinitely more real than those dry, stick-in-the-mud Methodists and Presbyterians who just care about religion.
In a recent interview on CNN, a proponent of the "laughing revival" suggested that religion is "like a drug." "It wants to beat you down and make you dependent upon it," he explained. "If I can make you feel guilty, you'll come back next week." Ironically, he didn't seem to notice the similarity in the throngs of people who travel thousands of miles and attend weekly for a sip of the self-described "Holy Ghost Bartender's" addictive brew.
For me, it's just the opposite. Religion is what reminds me that being a follower of Christ is not merely about showing up on Sunday for a Holy Ghost fix. Religion is what I do Monday through Saturday. Like marriage is to my relationship with my wife, religion is to my relationship with my God.
Since we're on the marriage parallel, imagine a husband telling his wife, "It's not about marriage, Baby. It's about the relationship."
Uh ... good luck with that, buddy.
No, marriage (like religion) is the sum total of the commitments, words, thoughts and actions that reveal that there is in fact a relationship. Religion isn't a dirty word; it's the way we live out our relationship with God--the sum total of prayer, study, fellowship, worship, evangelism and social action that give dynamic shape to an otherwise ethereal concept. This is probably what James [a man so religious, his knees were purported to be calloused like that of a camel from the time he spent in prayer] was thinking of when he described "pure religion" as both personal piety and social engagement.
Whether the solemn reflection of the eucharist or the ecstatic exuberance of holy laughter, both are religious experiences that may--or may not--reflect an authentic relationship. Sure, the word religion may have fallen upon hard times, but that doesn't mean it's time to discard it. Let's redefine it, teach it, model it and reclaim its true significance in a world where the "pure religion" James talks about has all but lost its meaning.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
In a recent interview on CNN, a proponent of the "laughing revival" suggested that religion is "like a drug." "It wants to beat you down and make you dependent upon it," he explained. "If I can make you feel guilty, you'll come back next week." Ironically, he didn't seem to notice the similarity in the throngs of people who travel thousands of miles and attend weekly for a sip of the self-described "Holy Ghost Bartender's" addictive brew.
For me, it's just the opposite. Religion is what reminds me that being a follower of Christ is not merely about showing up on Sunday for a Holy Ghost fix. Religion is what I do Monday through Saturday. Like marriage is to my relationship with my wife, religion is to my relationship with my God.
Since we're on the marriage parallel, imagine a husband telling his wife, "It's not about marriage, Baby. It's about the relationship."
Uh ... good luck with that, buddy.
No, marriage (like religion) is the sum total of the commitments, words, thoughts and actions that reveal that there is in fact a relationship. Religion isn't a dirty word; it's the way we live out our relationship with God--the sum total of prayer, study, fellowship, worship, evangelism and social action that give dynamic shape to an otherwise ethereal concept. This is probably what James [a man so religious, his knees were purported to be calloused like that of a camel from the time he spent in prayer] was thinking of when he described "pure religion" as both personal piety and social engagement.
Whether the solemn reflection of the eucharist or the ecstatic exuberance of holy laughter, both are religious experiences that may--or may not--reflect an authentic relationship. Sure, the word religion may have fallen upon hard times, but that doesn't mean it's time to discard it. Let's redefine it, teach it, model it and reclaim its true significance in a world where the "pure religion" James talks about has all but lost its meaning.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
15 July 2006
Will Carlton Pearson "Win"?
His Tulsa megachurch may have shrunken to the size of a country chapel, but Pentecostal universalist Carlton Pearson is convinced that his "new" take on hell will eventually be adopted by the rest of the church, as he claimed at the end of his appearance last Friday on Dateline.
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millenia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
August 15, 2006
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millenia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
August 15, 2006
Will Carlton Pearson "Win"?
His Tulsa megachurch may have shrunken to the size of a country chapel, but Pentecostal universalist Carlton Pearson is convinced that his "new" take on hell will eventually be adopted by the rest of the church, as he claimed at the end of his appearance last Friday on Dateline.
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millenia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
August 15, 2006
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millenia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
August 15, 2006
11 July 2006
Good News for North Korea
One of the world's favorite evangelicals (Rick Warren) will be visiting one of the world's least favorite nations (North Korea) to meet with church and business leaders to prepare for a return visit to preach to some 15,000 people in March 2007. Soon after the announcement, the Web lit up with criticisms of Warren--that he was "condoning" and "legitimizing" the North Korean government by accepting the invitation to preach there ... that Kim Jong il will use Warren as a shill to put a kinder, gentler face on the Asian dictatorship ... that Warren's arrival will draw Christians out of the woodwork, only to be persecuted once he leaves the scene.
Warren admits that this is a possibility ("I know they're going to use me. So, I'm going to use them.") But he defends his decision in his blog: "Regardless of politics, I will go anywhere I am invited to preach the Gospel. My hope is that these visits will promote religious freedom in a country where the practice of individual faith has been tightly controlled and virtually prohibited since 1945."
This is not the first time an unusual door of opportunity has opened for a high profile leader to penetrate a "closed country" with the gospel. In 1984 Billy Graham was vilified for visiting the Soviet Union, because he was only allowed to preach in the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox church--a "compromise" some felt should have precluded his visit. Now, 20 years later, as we observe how ineffective the Soviet Union was at snuffing out authentic Christianity, the criticisms against Graham seem irrelevant.
Is it suspicious that a notorious madman like Kim Jong il is considering allowing an evangelical pastor into his country for a crusade? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has prayed that North Korea's doors would eventually open to the outside world--if even a crack.
So, should we wait until North Korea is removed from the Axis of Evil before we pursue any opportunities to preach the gospel or bring encouragement to its persecuted citizens? Is our nation's diplomatic approval a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Of course not. Like its 20th-century predecessors, when the oppressive regime of North Korea finally topples, it won't be because of the machinations of human governments. Whether in ancient Rome, 20th-century Moscow or (dare I say) 21st-century Beijing and Mecca, it is Kingdom yeast and martyr blood that are the ingredients of true revolution.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 11, 2006
Warren admits that this is a possibility ("I know they're going to use me. So, I'm going to use them.") But he defends his decision in his blog: "Regardless of politics, I will go anywhere I am invited to preach the Gospel. My hope is that these visits will promote religious freedom in a country where the practice of individual faith has been tightly controlled and virtually prohibited since 1945."
This is not the first time an unusual door of opportunity has opened for a high profile leader to penetrate a "closed country" with the gospel. In 1984 Billy Graham was vilified for visiting the Soviet Union, because he was only allowed to preach in the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox church--a "compromise" some felt should have precluded his visit. Now, 20 years later, as we observe how ineffective the Soviet Union was at snuffing out authentic Christianity, the criticisms against Graham seem irrelevant.
Is it suspicious that a notorious madman like Kim Jong il is considering allowing an evangelical pastor into his country for a crusade? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has prayed that North Korea's doors would eventually open to the outside world--if even a crack.
So, should we wait until North Korea is removed from the Axis of Evil before we pursue any opportunities to preach the gospel or bring encouragement to its persecuted citizens? Is our nation's diplomatic approval a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Of course not. Like its 20th-century predecessors, when the oppressive regime of North Korea finally topples, it won't be because of the machinations of human governments. Whether in ancient Rome, 20th-century Moscow or (dare I say) 21st-century Beijing and Mecca, it is Kingdom yeast and martyr blood that are the ingredients of true revolution.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 11, 2006
Good News for North Korea
One of the world's favorite evangelicals (Rick Warren) will be visiting one of the world's least favorite nations (North Korea) to meet with church and business leaders to prepare for a return visit to preach to some 15,000 people in March 2007. Soon after the announcement, the Web lit up with criticisms of Warren--that he was "condoning" and "legitimizing" the North Korean government by accepting the invitation to preach there ... that Kim Jong il will use Warren as a shill to put a kinder, gentler face on the Asian dictatorship ... that Warren's arrival will draw Christians out of the woodwork, only to be persecuted once he leaves the scene.
Warren admits that this is a possibility ("I know they're going to use me. So, I'm going to use them.") But he defends his decision in his blog: "Regardless of politics, I will go anywhere I am invited to preach the Gospel. My hope is that these visits will promote religious freedom in a country where the practice of individual faith has been tightly controlled and virtually prohibited since 1945."
This is not the first time an unusual door of opportunity has opened for a high profile leader to penetrate a "closed country" with the gospel. In 1984 Billy Graham was vilified for visiting the Soviet Union, because he was only allowed to preach in the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox church--a "compromise" some felt should have precluded his visit. Now, 20 years later, as we observe how ineffective the Soviet Union was at snuffing out authentic Christianity, the criticisms against Graham seem irrelevant.
Is it suspicious that a notorious madman like Kim Jong il is considering allowing an evangelical pastor into his country for a crusade? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has prayed that North Korea's doors would eventually open to the outside world--if even a crack.
So, should we wait until North Korea is removed from the Axis of Evil before we pursue any opportunities to preach the gospel or bring encouragement to its persecuted citizens? Is our nation's diplomatic approval a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Of course not. Like its 20th-century predecessors, when the oppressive regime of North Korea finally topples, it won't be because of the machinations of human governments. Whether in ancient Rome, 20th-century Moscow or (dare I say) 21st-century Beijing and Mecca, it is Kingdom yeast and martyr blood that are the ingredients of true revolution.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 11, 2006
Warren admits that this is a possibility ("I know they're going to use me. So, I'm going to use them.") But he defends his decision in his blog: "Regardless of politics, I will go anywhere I am invited to preach the Gospel. My hope is that these visits will promote religious freedom in a country where the practice of individual faith has been tightly controlled and virtually prohibited since 1945."
This is not the first time an unusual door of opportunity has opened for a high profile leader to penetrate a "closed country" with the gospel. In 1984 Billy Graham was vilified for visiting the Soviet Union, because he was only allowed to preach in the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox church--a "compromise" some felt should have precluded his visit. Now, 20 years later, as we observe how ineffective the Soviet Union was at snuffing out authentic Christianity, the criticisms against Graham seem irrelevant.
Is it suspicious that a notorious madman like Kim Jong il is considering allowing an evangelical pastor into his country for a crusade? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has prayed that North Korea's doors would eventually open to the outside world--if even a crack.
So, should we wait until North Korea is removed from the Axis of Evil before we pursue any opportunities to preach the gospel or bring encouragement to its persecuted citizens? Is our nation's diplomatic approval a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Of course not. Like its 20th-century predecessors, when the oppressive regime of North Korea finally topples, it won't be because of the machinations of human governments. Whether in ancient Rome, 20th-century Moscow or (dare I say) 21st-century Beijing and Mecca, it is Kingdom yeast and martyr blood that are the ingredients of true revolution.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 11, 2006
03 July 2006
Liberty for All
What religious group in America grew 1675 percent between 1990 and 2001? Wicca. Buried in an article about a "witch school" opening in small-town Illinois, we find this stat from the Religious Identification Survey citing the growing popularity of Wicca. According to InterVarsity's Pocket Guide to World Religions, Wicca is ...
... the Western religion of witchcraft. It does not endorse evil, let alone worship Satan, but instead attempts to draw on the spiritual powers in the universe to promote goodness and healing. Wicca recognizes many gods, including the supreme goddess, who is represented by the moon. It teaches that there are many invisible lines of spiritual power crisscrossing the world around us and that it is possible to tap into them for the sake of helping others. Wicca often likes to paint itself as the female alternative to male-dominated established religion. A membership figure of 50,000 is a highly speculative estimate since the practitioners meet in local covens with no unified headquarters.The article notes that, although he opposed the arrival of the witch school, a baptist pastor in the area has "come to accept the school as a permanent fixture and moved on, even though he doesn't approve of Wiccan beliefs." Before we blame this preacher for giving up the fight, let's consider some of the tough questions of religious liberty and pluralism this story brings to the surface.
Should Christians defend religious freedom for religions that compete with--and even oppose--Christianity?
I believe we should. We have nothing to fear from competing faiths, if we are effectively articulating, defending and applying our own. Biblical Christianity has been shown to thrive in any environment--whether open or oppressive.
But what about in the Old Testament, when idolaters and sorcerers were put to the sword?
Good point. But we're not living under a theocracy--or even a monarchy--but a democratic republic, the founding principles of which do not demand that its citizens adhere to Christianity.
Are there certain religions that should be excluded from the benefits of religious freedom, such as fundamentalist Islam and Wicca?
I don't think so. But there are practices common to certain religions and sects that should be outlawed, such as terrorism, polygamy, spousal abuse, animal sacrifice, female mutilation, etc.
If the majority of Americans were Christians, would it be a good idea to make the U.S. an officially "Christian nation" through the legislative process--and outlaw all false religions?
This is a great idea--in theory. However, there is no historical precedent of this working--whether in a representative government or in an authoritarian monarchy. In fact, it seems that whenever Christianity becomes a "majority religion" or a "state religion" of a nation, that nation soon slips into decline--both morally and politically.
Simply put, can we advocate religious freedom in places like Iraq, North Korea and China (for the benefit of Christianity) and not defend religious freedom here at home (for the benefit of Wiccans)? No. Like Paul--who lived and ministered in the pluralistic, idolatrous and oppressive context of the Roman Empire--we must recognize that there will come a time when "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." And that includes Wiccans. In the meantime, we depend on the winsomeness of our message and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--not the force of government--to carry out our Great Commission.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 3, 2006
Liberty for All
What religious group in America grew 1675 percent between 1990 and 2001? Wicca. Buried in an article about a "witch school" opening in small-town Illinois, we find this stat from the Religious Identification Survey citing the growing popularity of Wicca. According to InterVarsity's Pocket Guide to World Religions, Wicca is ...
The article notes that, although he opposed the arrival of the witch school, a baptist pastor in the area has "come to accept the school as a permanent fixture and moved on, even though he doesn't approve of Wiccan beliefs." Before we blame this preacher for giving up the fight, let's consider some of the tough questions of religious liberty and pluralism this story brings to the surface.
... the Western religion of witchcraft. It does not endorse evil, let alone worship Satan, but instead attempts to draw on the spiritual powers in the universe to promote goodness and healing. Wicca recognizes many gods, including the supreme goddess, who is represented by the moon. It teaches that there are many invisible lines of spiritual power crisscrossing the world around us and that it is possible to tap into them for the sake of helping others. Wicca often likes to paint itself as the female alternative to male-dominated established religion. A membership figure of 50,000 is a highly speculative estimate since the practitioners meet in local covens with no unified headquarters.
The article notes that, although he opposed the arrival of the witch school, a baptist pastor in the area has "come to accept the school as a permanent fixture and moved on, even though he doesn't approve of Wiccan beliefs." Before we blame this preacher for giving up the fight, let's consider some of the tough questions of religious liberty and pluralism this story brings to the surface.
Should Christians defend religious freedom for religions that compete with--and even oppose--Christianity?
I believe we should. We have nothing to fear from competing faiths, if we are effectively articulating, defending and applying our own. Biblical Christianity has been shown to thrive in any environment--whether open or oppressive.
But what about in the Old Testament, when idolaters and sorcerers were put to the sword?
Good point. But we're not living under a theocracy--or even a monarchy--but a democratic republic, the founding principles of which do not demand that its citizens adhere to Christianity.
Are there certain religions that should be excluded from the benefits of religious freedom, such as fundamentalist Islam and Wicca?
I don't think so. But there are practices common to certain religions and sects that should be outlawed, such as terrorism, polygamy, spousal abuse, animal sacrifice, female mutilation, etc.
If the majority of Americans were Christians, would it be a good idea to make the U.S. an officially "Christian nation" through the legislative process--and outlaw all false religions?
This is a great idea--in theory. However, there is no historical precedent of this working--whether in a representative government or in an authoritarian monarchy. In fact, it seems that whenever Christianity becomes a "majority religion" or a "state religion" of a nation, that nation soon slips into decline--both morally and politically.
Simply put, can we advocate religious freedom in places like Iraq, North Korea and China (for the benefit of Christianity) and not defend religious freedom here at home (for the benefit of Wiccans)? No. Like Paul--who lived and ministered in the pluralistic, idolatrous and oppressive context of the Roman Empire--we must recognize that there will come a time when "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." And that includes Wiccans. In the meantime, we depend on the winsomeness of our message and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--not the force of government--to carry out our Great Commission.
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
July 3, 2006
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)