Posted on 07/10/2007 4:28:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This is Happy-Clappy Christianity! All style, no substance!
The subject of sin, punishment, forgiveness and redemption is never preached here!
In this church, we want you to feel good--without being good--or even trying to be good!
What's this called, boys and girls? APOSTATE CHURCH
No. I did not.
I argued that it seems to me Dan Smith is creating an attractive environment for lost people so that they will come into direct contact with the love of God, and that the driving force underlying this work IS, evidently, the love of God made manifest in Smith's own life. In this, I argue that the particular methods and forms he's using are being made subject to the Prime Directive of Jesus to tell the world of the love of God as revealed by his sacrifice. Highlighting the magnitude of that love does not, in any way, debase my position; it reinforces it by confirming the priority of the love of God above all else.
The sacrifice of Calvary was a work of inexpressible love; a love SO beyond human experience that St. John, writing in I John 4 says that -- if you don't know God, and aren't born of God -- whatever you may have ever felt or expressed; it wasn't love.
Look at his language in verse 7:
"...everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
"Everyone who loves" establishes that his next words are going to be stipulations describing the category of all people who love. He makes two, clear, concise stipulations; that the definition of "everyone who loves" is that they are people who:
A) Have been "born of God", and
B) "know God".
Any person not meeting these two stipulations is, therefore, OUTSIDE the defined group; NOT a member of "everyone who loves". [Try preaching THAT to an unsaved crowd. "You've NEVER -- EVER -- known what love really is."]
I go to this painstaking extent to clarify this point, because this love that we cannot give, or know, apart from being born of God, and knowing God, is first manifest to us in the Cross of Christ, and we, in this modern time, do not afford it the gravity it requires; principally because we make no linguistic differentiation between the "love" of God, and our "love" of pizza.
If I may, John 3:16 might more adequately strike our hearts with the actual truth rendered thus:
For God is so madly, sold-out, and irretrievably heartsick in His love for us, that He gave His only Son...
Since this monumental expression of a love we could never know has released to us the knowledge and experience of nothing less than that previously-unknowable love (the love that can only come from God, because God IS love), my description of the purpose of Jesus in yielding himself to the cross does NOT undermine my position, but reinforces it.
The love of God shed abroad in Christ is SO overwhelming; it comes upon us inexorably, having no regard at all for our sin, as we live this day of grace. It looks beyond every stain and seeks out our hearts. It is not turned aside by our foul mouths, or our addictions, or our lusts, or our crimes. This inextinguishable love, emanating toward -- no INTO -- our very hearts from the Heart of God Himself, our Abba, our Father, cannot, while grace springs hopeful, be suppressed.
Certainly there WILL come that day when God says, "IT IS DONE", and grace will be no more, and the wrath of God will be poured out in full measure.
But TODAY is not THAT DAY.
So, how can the church legitimately manifest judgment to a world toward which God, Himself, is manifesting so great a love that it looks beyond all faults in seeking the hearts of all men? How can we possibly entertain such a betrayal of the message of the Cross?
The cross shouts with that voice like the thundering of many waters, "I, YHVH, the Only God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, have LOVED you with an everlasting love, and My Heart's desire is that you accept the sacrifice I have made so that you and I can have intimate fellowship, now, on Earth, and forevermore, in Heaven."
The message of the church where Dan Smith ministers to his community is, it seems to me, in-sync with that love in getting people to where they can HEAR God's heart-cry of love, so they can respond to it, believe, and be saved.
It doesn't matter how they talk, at that point.
It doesn't matter how they're dressed, at that point.
It doesn't matter what they're addicted to, at that point.
NOTHING matters, at that point, beyond them coming to understand that the ultimate "I LOVE YOU" of the cross of Christ is a Personal message TO them FROM YHVH Himself.
If it takes some thumpin' rap music, a funny skit, and a comedy act to get lost people into position to get that word from God, then I am joyful in the harvest, and commend the work. No less a man than the Apostle Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." Were he among us today, you might well find him playing a part in a comedic skit at the church where Dan Smith ministers.
It all comes down to this: Are we, the church, in the things we say and do, faithfully manifesting otherwise-unknowable love from God to our lost world? If, at any point, the answer is "No", then it is incumbent upon us to change so that the answer will be "Yes", instead. When the answer is "Yes", the lost will be impacted by that inexorable love, and the changes that need to happen in their lives -- cleaning up their language, altering their dress codes, breaking their addictions, &c. -- will follow naturally as their own hearts respond to the love of God.
So, we ought not be so preoccupied with that stuff on the head end. Doing so almost communicates that we don't think God's love is great enough to change peoples' lives that much, which is NOT AT ALL what our message is supposed to be.
I believe that our righteous response to news like that in this article is to refrain from throwing up knee-jerk objections over nonessential things like forms of worship and communication styles. If hard evidence appears of something truly contrary to the mission of God among the lost, THEN that thing can be brought out and considered. But, in the absence of such evidence, our condemnation -- even our hedging, stained-glass-windowed trepidations and "gee, I dunno" kind of talk -- are premature, petty, and not representative of that great love we profess. As such, we harm our witness and disparage the cross of Christ if we engage in such behavior.
Let us, instead, have love toward this man, Dan Smith, to the extent that we have no evidence that what he is doing is contrary to the love of God; to the extent that he, at this point, appears to be of the House of God. Let us not speak divisively against him or against the work that he is doing, so that no one may point to our conversation as evidence of some paucity in the work of grace. Let not our godly caution of illegitimate works cross over into ungodly condemnation of legitimate works. Let us, instead, say "yea" and "amen", commending Dan Smith, his congregation, and their work to God, lifting them before the Throne of grace, in full faith and confidence that His Divine will shall be, ultimately, made manifest in their lives. So let us seek to strengthen, not weaken, this work, and trust God that whatever may require correction will be revealed to them by the Spirit, interceding for them that they walk in humility, so that correction will be eagerly recieved.
Grace and peace to you. May the Spirit and love of God dwell within you in power.
Pwn3d,
-- HKMk23
You don't KNOW that! The article doesn't say one way or the other. If it IS being preached there, then -- congratulations -- you've just managed to add your voice to that of The Accuser of the Brethren.
I trust that's NOT at all what you had in mind to do. What's this called, boys and girls? APOSTATE CHURCH
Oh, stop it! And climb down outta your tree. Quit worshipping the forms. Instead, receive the love of God and respond to that in worship.
I pray God comes upon you in power and flat lays you out with a fresh grasp of the magnitude of His love for you.
“Senator Saruman (D-Isengard)”
LOL!! Thanks. THAT was funny.
See the video that started it all...here:
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2651184
For me these are places of entertainment.
It is prophecied in Revelation (18:4) that there will be an Apostate (Counterfeit) Church in the last days. The evidence is all around us as it is, and that those who support it would be given a strong delusion, so that they will believe a lie. St. Paul states they will have itching ears and teachers who will teach them what they want to hear, and sound doctrine will not be tolerated. (2 Timothy 4:3)
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and the multitudes enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." --Matthew 7:13-14
Uh, yeah, you hit my "I despise baseless accusations against members of The Body" nerve, and your post sorta seemed like you were goin' off just a bit, yourself, basis your generosity with exclamation points, though I will acknowledge that you did not post in ALL CAPS, so I'll grant that you were not totally "on the ceiling".
The core issue I had with your post is that I couldn't find any tangible support for your assertions among the information in the article, which I'd just assumed that you had read. There's no way you can back up your accusations without additional information that is not provided in the piece; you would have to know more about this church from some other source, and you didn't name any other source, yet you leveled your accusations, anyway.
Based on no concrete information you asserted that this church is "All style, no substance!" With an exclamation point.
Based on a similar lack of concrete information, you mystically concluded that "The subject of sin, punishment, forgiveness and redemption is never preached here!" Again, with an exclamation point.
In a vacuity of hard evidence, you characterized that "In this church, we want you to feel good--without being good--or even trying to be good!" With yet another "!".
Finally, upon the foundation of pure nothing you'd erected, you asserted that this congregation is, in fact, apostate.
Now, looking back on that, do you see how easy it was for me to believe that you were, in fact, "going off"?
By contrast, I thought my reply was actually fairly restrained. Yes, I called you out pretty strongly at a couple of points; I made the sobering point that, if you were asserting that the church was not preaching what they ought to be, and it turns out that they ARE, then your assertion becomes a false accusation; the trademark of a certain Enemy with whom you do not wish to align yourself. But, then, I also granted that such was not likely your intention.
I strongly admonished you to stop being so sensational with the APOSTATE CHURCH in all-caps. But, then, your charge of apostasy, arriving as the culmination of your other unsupported claims, was, quite frankly, way over-the-top.
While I wholly respect the scriptural references you cite, there is no evidence in the article that this church is at crossed purposes with any of them.
There's no evidence that this congregation is part of the apostasy described in Rev. 18:4. When the Great Apostasy breaks out it will NOT be confused with run-of-the-mill, stock-in-trade spiritual lukewarmness; it will be abject spiritual COLD, and an active, intentional rejection of the things of God; not even going so far as to put on the mere appearance of godliness. When you see it, if you remain in Christ, you will recognize immediately, "THAT is IT".
There's no evidence that they're under any "strong delusion". I don't think the "strong delusion" is upon us, just yet, the whack-o Left's affliction with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" notwithstanding.
There's no evidence that they are preaching a message tailored to "itching ears"; making the gospel culturally relevant is not what that scripture refers to.
Lastly, there's no evidence that they're not leading people to that one-and-only Narrow Gate.
All I'm really out here trying to do is get people who appear to be Christians to post like they really are; to stop making knee-jerk accusations against what may well be a legitimate part of The Body of Christ when there is no basis in known fact.
Now, if you have known facts that arise from a source beyond this article, lay them out there, but, if not, please, for the sake of the cross, cease from the judgmental posture, and extend these people some of that grace Jesus paid so much for.
Now. Finally, I honestly and earnestly pray that God comes upon you in power and flat lays you out with a fresh grasp of the magnitude of His love for you. May the deeper understanding of His immeasurable love just ruin you. And I mean "ruin" in the most sweetly-broken-by-the-Father's-love sense imaginable.
Pwn3d,
-- HKMk23
Hey, look, I’m sorry, but we just can’t go on like this. You ignore nearly everything I say, refuse to address more than one or two lines of it at any depth, cherry-pick a point here or there to beat on, and then you’re just rude about it. I can’t fathom why you’re so hung up about what a church service needs to be like that there’s no room in your universe — the love of God notwithstanding — for any church to do things any differently than you would, as if ONLY YOUR way communicates the love of God. Yeah, right. Whatever.
See ya in 1,000 years.
Oh, and FWIW, Snidely Whiplash, I CAN’T be “Di5-Pwn3d”, the order of Adoption is signed by God — in BLOOD.
You need to research the roots of the seeker sensitive movement.
You REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to do that.
Take it all the way back to Robert Schuller.
“I CAN’T be “Di5-Pwn3d”,”
Pardon me Dudley Do-Right :-) I thought your “Pwn3d” was directed to me! I perceived you comment as, “I really Pwn3d you with my r¡9h7€0µ§ arguments!”
I did address your point - because you wanted to make it all about the “LUV”. There more to it than “LUV” my friend. A “love” that ignores the more unpleasant aspects of the Bible is fake love.
P.S.S. A song about women’s butts turned into a song about the Holy Word of God is sick, sacrilegious and stupid.
Over the years I’ve come to appreciate that I don’t have all the answers and perhaps don’t have the only correct understanding on every point even when Biblically it seems clear to me. I've also come to know that others don't either. Perhaps I now appreciate grace more and try to give it when I can. Perhaps I understand my role is only to water while others reap. I'm still trying to listen more than I speak but that seems a never ending struggle.
Now I don’t agree 100% with what TheBattman responded with in #19, but I sense his humility. All of which goes back to my point about different “styles” of Christianity: on one extreme there is a hard-core, book-chapter-verse approach that clearly has a place, versus what this Dan Smith is pushing which, again IMO, has a place as well. My hope would be that many of those who attend a Dan Smith style Church would eventually get feed just enough of the truth (milk) to hunger for more of the meat & potatoes. Where God might take them from there...I don't know.
The main Church that I attended for years typically made the Sunday worship a fairly lite weight, Bible based, fun, uplifting gathering of family. Sure, there were many exceptions, but typically. However, it was understood that the Wednesday night Bible studies were much more serious, agenda driven, formal instruction. Is that right or wrong? Heck, I don’t know. I will tell you that for many years it worked very well, so judging by the fruits, I guess it was on the right track.
Goals are the same. Styles are different.
It has become fashionable for Christians to define themselves as "non-judgmental", but it is amazing how judgmental and rude these "non-judgmental" Christians turn out to be. All they have done is changed the target of their ire from the unsaved to conservative Christians, which in our culture today is a "safe" target. Too many Christians are just cultural weathervanes.
“Dudly Do-right”. LOL!! Touché!
For my own part I’d misread your “Di5-Pwn3d” in a grave, spiritually negative fashion, which I ought not have allowed myself to believe that you would imlpy. Mea culpa.
And, “Thank you”, for calling me “friend”; I was feeling distressed that the tone of our exchanges was becoming less civil, and much appreciate the “olive branch”.
_____
This is the foundation of my whole argument throughout my posts on this thread:
Man sees the outside, but God looks upon the heart.
This does not make anything “all about the ‘LUV’”; some kind of hapless, sickly-sweet, sappy and empty emotionalism. It makes everything about God’s genuine love and our response to Him.
Man, because he sees the outside, is prone to believe that what he sees — that which is immediately evident — is most important, but God knows that what He sees is all that really matters.
God desires that all we do would arise from our heart’s response to the love He has shown, and be an expression of our love for Him in return. As Paul wrote, “Do all as unto the LORD”.
Nothing we do that genuinely has this property is regarded by God as “bad fruit”. [critical keyword: genuinely]
Some things we do that genuinely have this property will be regarded by man as “bad fruit”, but, since man sees only the outside, he is unqualified to judge the fruit, apart from the witness of the Spirit of God.
Therefore, the unspiritual man cannot render judgment of the fruit at all, and even the man in whom the Spirit is, cannot rely on his own “gut level” judgment of the fruit, but must be certain to judge only according to the witness of the Spirit of God.
As a practical matter, then, it is better to refrain from judgment of the fruit except when the testimony of the Spirit of God is unmistakably known, and this is not to be confused with the responses of the flesh to things that man sees on the outside.
I think Dr. Gary North, who I do not agree with completely but makes good points, used the term “intellectual weathervane” to describe a liberal Christian.
While reading the comments on this thread, I was reminded of David's wife's response when she saw him dancing before the Lord in his joy (was she ever a sour puss!). Not only is America a great country, our God is a Great God, with a fine sense of humor else He wouldn't allow me to keep using up the resources! God loves us so much, He will come to where we are in order to woo us to Him.
You make a very strong point, and I think the apoostle Paul would back you up.
In I Corinthians 2, he writes these things:
“...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstrations of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (vv. 4 & 5) NASB
So, there’s a message delivered for the purpose of bringing the hearers into faith in such a way that persuasive talk would not be a substitute for, or a mask over, the power of God.
Then, Paul writes this:
“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature...” (v. 6) NASB
And he goes on to elaborate on the godly origin and nature of that wisdom.
Your church Sunday service was more the first kind of message, and the Wednesday night meeting was more the latter. I’ve been to that kind of church, before, and it works, as you note.
I’ve also been in churches where the Sunday services were for basic teaching and some ministry in prayer, and house meetings throughout the week were used for deeper teaching, and more personal ministry in prayer.
The church I now attend has a teaching hour before the main service to “get into the meat”, and the message given in the service is more basic.
All are examples of what I think is a legitimate handling of basic vs. advanced teaching in The Kingdom of God. We serve the milk in a glass, “Please, hold it with two hands so you don’t spill”, but we put the meat on a plate, and provide tools for cutting it into bite-sized pieces so it can be properly digested, “Don’t eat off of your knife”.
Having two different forums for these two different approaches is, I think, quite appropriate.
It doesn't seem odd to you that neither Jesus nor the Apostles engaged in entertainment to preach the Gospel? "Good evening, everyone. We will shortly speak about the way to eternal life. But first, put your hands together to welcome Peter the Sword Juggler..."
Not at all. The very God of Creation was present with them in the flesh He formed in order to inform them of His mystery for Salvation. In our day, the darkness caused by so much fluff and hedonism makes it sometimes useful to ‘go where they are’ not where we would like them to be. Here’s a sort of parable: In Jesus’s day, candle light pierced the darkness; in today’s world, it takes a laser to penetrate the darkness. ... For God so loved us, that while we were yet sinners ...
What seems odd, to me, is that, as a means of getting people's attention so they'll listen to the gospel, we've substituted skits, and comedy acts in the church, for raising the lame, and restoring sight to the blind on the street.
In fact, it's gotten SO bad, that if such an account surfaces -- of a lame man being raised up, or sight being restored -- at best it is doubted, and, at worst, the preacher is reviled as a Satanist, and the healing labeled a demonic fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.