On Cars and CRN

Apparently, what a pastor chooses to drive is fair game for blog fodder over at CRN, especially if they can use it to get a jab in at Erwin McManus. Seriously, how is Erwin stating that pastors should drive whatever they want a point of contention worthy of a post? Apparently pastors (and the rest of us) should run our car choices past the ever elusive "Editor" at CRN before purchasing.

So Erwin likes fast and fun cars. Most guys do. Heck, a lot of women enjoy sports cars. What business is it of theirs (or anyone else) what Erwin McManus (or any other pastor, or anyone for that matter) what kind of car is in his driveway? How is this related to salvation, grace, theology, God's call, etc.? The simple answer is: it isn't. And I think it means that CRN is getting desperate for anything they can use against those they disagree with.

Of course, someone from CRN will say that it's about the deeper issue of Erwin using the phrase "whatever we want," and that that somehow indicates a heart condition out of line with Scripture. To which I respond, if you look for what you want to find, you'll find it sooner or later, even if it's not there.

So, "Editor," I'm thinking about buying a 1995 Ford Taurus wagon. Does that meet with your approval? I'll send you pictures of the cars I'm considering if it helps.

CRN's Sour Grapes or When did "Relevance" Become a Dirty Word?

I simply couldn't let this post over at CRN go by without comment. In it, we are directed to this year's list of the 50 most influential churches in America. The list includes several of CRN's "usual suspects" (their words, not mine), including Joel Osteen (Lakewood Church, Texas), Rick Warren (Saddleback Church), Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Community Church), T. D. Jakes (The Potter's House), and others. Mind you, I don't think that any of these men are infallible, and of those whom I have listed above, I don't know enough about what they teach to be able to pass judgement on them, nor would I want to. So why this post?

The reason is two-fold. First, the mysterious "Editor" at CRN chose to title this post "More Buffoonery?" Interesting title, and interesting heart condition, to be labeling brothers in Christ (and their congregations) as "buffoons." OK, I could let that slide. Really, I could. But it is the manner in which they point out that John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA) was *NOT* included on the list, going so far as to call it a "relevance parade." Sour grapes, perhaps? Second, exactly when did "relevance" become a dirty word? It seems to me that if the church becomes irrelevant, it will die. It will have no place in American culture, and will simply fade into nothing. Dictionary.com (a great resource, by the way) defines relevance as:

1. Pertinence to the matter at hand.
2. Applicability to social issues

As I stated above, if we are not pertinent to matters at hand (namely, many of the issues which CRN writes about), and if we cannot apply ourselves to social issues in a relevant matter, then what point is there for the church to exist? It rather reminds me of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13, in which we are told that though we speak in the tongues of men and angels, or do great things, but have not love, we are nothing. I believe the same principle applies. If we seek to exist in a vacuum, we will get exactly what we want, but it won't last. Like it or not, we are in this sinful, fallen world for the long haul, and we need to make the most of it. We need to be willing to engage those around us, not simply tell them they are lost and going to burn for all of eternity.

Ken Silva's El Niño

Over at CRN.Info Chris has published a response to Pastor Ken Silva's latest missive. I've decided to link to his response rather than write one of my own, because Chris expresses the point I would like to make much better than I ever could. In his missive, Pastor Silva takes an Episcopal priestess who has embraced Islam without leaving the church (no, I don't know how that works either), links her to the Emergent/emerging church, and decries the entire movement as "not of God" and responsible for all of the ills in the Church today. I encourage you to read what Chris has written on this topic.

If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan...

then so should John MacArthur.

In recent posts (here and here) over at Christian Research Network, Rev. Ken Silva calls on Rick Warren to boycott Zondervan, the publishing house that prints his book The Purpose Driven Life. His reasoning behind this is that Zondervan is owned by News Corp, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corp owns several pornography channels in Europe, and Rick Warren has apparently claimed to be Murdoch's pastor (this is still hotly contested, and is not an issue I'm going to get into here). Among its other holdings, News Corp also owns HarperCollins, which publishes The Satanic Bible. So what?

I'm glad you asked.

Zondervan, owned by News Corp/Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the company that publishes The Satanic Bible, publishes two of John MacArthur's books: The Gospel According to Jesus, and Charismatic Chaos. If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan because of it's connection to The Satanic Bible, then Ken (and other discernment ministries that have picked up this story) should call on John MacArthur to do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ken Said WHAT???

I couldn't let this article at CRN pass without comment. Aside from Ken's usual slander and name calling (posers to the faith, neo-liberal cult, etc.), this is the part that made my jaw drop:

This Memorial Day weekend, how about we ask God to help us remember the Biblical doctrines of grace that we as Christians are supposed to be preaching and then use these useless books of the so-called emerging church to light our bonfires. Let’s use them to fuel our cookouts, at least then they might just produce something useful after all…

I cannot believe that Ken is actually advocating that we burn books! People, this is what the Nazis did! And lest Ken try to pull the article and say it never happened, I have taken a screenshot.

Is Ken really advocating this kind of suppression of ideas? Burning books?

I still can't believe it.

A Slice of Hypocrisy at CRN

In a recent post (by the ambiguous "editor") over at CRN, Doug Pagitt was criticized for removing a post from his blog. I would like to note, and make clear, that while I didn't see the original post (and therefore will have to take the "editor's" word for it), Doug did post on *why* the original is now gone, and why he has replaced it. This is far more than we have seen from CRN in it's former incarnation, Slice of Laodicea (which has been reborn, but that's another topic). In it's days as SoL, multiple posts simply disappeared off the site, with no explanation. It was as if they had never existed, and many would likely not know they had ever been there if not for the work of bloggers who did see the posts, and pointed readers to the Internet Archive at wayback.org. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Pagitt at least gave us an explanation for what he did and why; Slice/CRN would prefer to act as though the post in question simply never happened, as long as it's on *THEIR* site.

And the Missed Joke Goes WOOSH!!!

Right over the head of the mysterious "editor" over at CRN. Specifically, their post entitled Nice to Worship, to Worship Nice! Naturally, I had to investigate this for myself, because what was being written seemed just a little too... well, out there. Upon investigation of the article the editor linked to, I found a few clues, namely, the fact that the article was published on April 1st of this year. (Side note: in Europe, dates are commonly written in the DD/MM/YYYY format, whereas we in the US usually use the MM/DD/YYYY format). I won't go over this with a fine tooth comb here, but another clue was the name of the production company: Boulderdash. Sounds just a bit like balderdash, doesn't it? It also seems to be the case that Boulderdash produced many arcade games which are now considered classics. And we can't forget the "promotional deal" that is supposedly being "negotiated personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury." Really now.

But what really tipped me off was the premire date at the end of the article: Sunday, April 1st, 2008. Astute readers will remember that this year, April 1st fell on a Sunday, and so it cannot possibly do the same next year. In fact, April 1, 2008 will fall on a Tuesday. A mere typo? I think not.