Can you really argue with success?

This is a great parable told by the Internet Monk about church growth and the "new" church that is modeled by the likes of Joel Osteen and co.:

“A Parable for our Seeker-Sensitive, Purpose-Driven, Church Growth Oriented Friends”
Make sure you read the comments after the parable as well, they are just as interesting.

News about Ted Haggard (immorality), Randy and Paula White (divorce), and Juanita Bynum (domestic abuse in her 3rd marriage) have got the blogosphere talking again about the prosperity gospel-- more importantly, the failures and dangers of the message.

It's hard to argue with success. It's hard to argue to people that Joel Osteen has issues when his membership is above 15,000. It's hard to argue with Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland when they own multiple luxury cars, personal aircraft, and STILL have large followings. It's not like these guys are like Robert Tilton or Peter Popoff. The only difference to me is that the others haven't been caught yet......

UPDATE: I'm not saying Osteen and Hinn use radio transmissions or have committed physical fraud. I'm just saying that nothing has happened to critically injure their efforts as has happened to Tilton and Co.

I guess I am just tired with the idea that God is an investment strategy with a guaranteed return on investment and that material and physical success is guaranteed to me when Scripture is so clear that storms and troubles will come. On top of that, why do we teach people to strive for riches when Jesus makes it clear that rich people will have a VERY difficult time getting to heaven?

I saw an anonymous commenter say that the prosperity message is primarily broadcast through the power of "The Balaam Network". I googled the phrase, wondering if this was some wacked-out group. Then it finally hit me......

He was referring to TBN.

That's a conversation starter if I ever heard one.

An atheist's experience

This is a quote from an atheist that visited 30 churches to study what impressions they would leave him with. Look at what he was left with....

clipped from www.internetmonk.com Clearly, most churches have aligned themselves against non-religious people. By adopting this stance, Christians have turned off the people I would think they want to connect with. The combative stance I’ve observed is an approach that causes people to become apathetic—and even antagonistic—toward religion as a whole. Many evangelical pastors seem to perceive just about everything to be a threat against Christianity. Evolution is a threat. Gay marriage is a threat. A swear word uttered accidentally on television is a threat. Democrats are a threat. I don’t see how any of these things pose a threat against Christianity. If someone disagrees with you about politics or social issues or the matter of origins, isn’t that just democracy and free speech in action? Why do Christians feel so threatened? You need to spread the message of Christianity—the message being what Christianity stands for—loving each other, helping the people around you. Those are things everyone can get on board with.

Emerging Wednesday- inerrancy, Amazing Grace, and choice sermons

A movie called Amazing Grace is coming out on the 23rd. It stars Ioan Gruffud as William Wilberforce, the British Parliament member who helped end slavery in the British Empire decades before America abolished it. Early reviews I have read are promising, and the trailer looks good. I intend to see it in theaters and support it. Oh, there's some connection the the song Amazing Grace as well, if you hadn't already figured that out. For those out there that want a total surprise, I won't say what the connection is.

Tagged onto the movie's release is a movement to have as many churches as possible sing Amazing Grace on Sunday, Feb. 18th. While there may some PR here to promote the movie, the website for this (http://www.amazinggracesunday.com) talks quite a bit about the resurgence of the slave trade in some parts of the world. I might just add our house church to the list....

While attending Lee University, one of my favorite chapel speakers was Rev. Joe Novenson, pastor of Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church near Chattanooga, TN. He is an amazing teacher that presented the gospel in a humble yet powerful way that still captures my spirit. I was pleased to discover that many of his recent sermons are available as mp3's on the church site for free. In a day where many pastors are charging $20-30 for sermon sets (something that REALLY bothers me when the price is exorbitant), it is refreshing to see someone of great anointing and talent willing to share it freely.

Now here's the one that'll get somebody mad- I am studying this whole topic of biblical inerrancy. Since I was raised in rather fundamentalist circles, believing in an inerrant text is kind of a given, so it was never discussed. I have been reading some excellent posts from internetmonk.com on the subject and am encouraged for one reason: you can still believe the bible is true even though it may not be inerrant. Most fundalmentalists will say that if the bible is not inerrant, then you:

1. Can't take the bible as true anymore.
2. You are claiming that God made mistakes, which he can't do.
3. You doubt the Spirit's ability to rightly inspire the authors of the text, or the authors' ability to hear it correctly.

In all areas of faith, Christians are always willing to concede that no matter how anointed a person is, or how much God uses them, they will still make mistakes and that's just part of the result of a perfect God communicating through an imperfect man. But when it comes to Scripture, that argument is completely dismissed and somehow that fraternity of bible authors managed to get everything correct down to the last punctuation mark. We always talk about how God can overcome our failing and still get his message across, but that doesn't apply to Scripture.

I'll be talking about this alot in the near future because I really want to understand both sides. I am starting with an intertmonk recommended series by Chris Tilling.