I would like to memorialize that on May 16, 2011 Mark Driscoll wrote some things that made a certain amount of sense while only making one illustrative reference (each) to porn and the Victoria’s Secret catalog.

The question that springs to mind is: how much annual leave do most Americans get? (I know it’s significantly less than here, where the mandatory minimum for any full-time job is 4 weeks/ a year) And if so, how much are they robbing their own families of that time?

And yes, even Driscoll gets it right sometimes 🙂 (There’s probably some statistical law that demands it)

Lynne, I would guess that your typical American worker gets 2-6 weeks paid vacation each year, with an additional 5-10 paid holidays and varying amounts of sick time.

But…most folks involved in church work are going to be on the low end of those figures, and if they work in smaller churches their vacation time may be more in the realm of non-existent to take-time-when-you-can. My guess is that a lot of the attendees are either church staff from larger churches who can afford to send them or lay people who have the time and money to go.

It would be interesting to see a demographic on your average conference-goer.

@Eagle

Good idea. But ladies, don’t forget to bring your ventriloquist dummies. You never know who might engage you in theological discussion.

Eagle, I’ll print up the “Christus Victor” tee shirts. That’ll get ‘m riled. 😉

I attend a week long conference every year organised by my church. I don’t look forward to it; I go because I’m in charge of Children’s Ministry in my church. I don’t like the hype surrounding it, I go because I know the amount of work and effort that goes into organising it. Some aspects of it would cause the Calvinistas to choke; women and men preach at it!

Deb, while you linked to Driscoll’s resurgence website “The Crisis of Conference Christians”, the main page http://theresurgence.com/ promotes the Resurgence R12 conference. Irony? And what’s with the tattooing and ballet shoes photos next to the “Because Jesus lives we live for Jesus” banner? Nil cognition here.

I have only been in one large conference, only a few months after I left my previous church. It lasted a few days and it definitely was on the “Reformed” side of the road, with names like D.A. Carson or Terry Virgo… But I have to admit that it was good for me as, at the time, I was carrying a lot of baggage, both theological and psychological, that I needed to leave behind. And I had been invited by people from church, so I didn’t have to pay for it. This was over 3 years ago and haven’t gone again due to time and money issues.

But I know people who have attended every year since. I couldn’t say why they go, if it’s for the “high”, because it’s genuinely useful for them or what else… Meanwhile there’s been a range of other national and regional conferences, and I have been encouraged to attend some of the Men’s conferences. Never did. I don’t know if I’m being closed minded, but I always feel there’s something missing in those Men’s meetings 🙂

With respect to “conference Christians”, I agree that a problem can develop there. I’ve realised that when I’ve based my spirituality in the way things were done in a particular congregation or church, then things quickly “deflated” once I was left on my own and far from that particular place. However, after I took a more balanced view of my own spirituality, basing it on Jesus Himself, on my own personality and in the fellowship with others, I think things started to “flow” a bit more naturally… Maybe it doesn’t make me feel “high” that often and I still commit a large a mount of mistakes, but it somehow feels more secure.

This is the main problem I see, not counting the monetary bleeding, for the people who may base their lives around all these conferences. At times they might be useful, but the system can be abused and it can also end up “abusing” the people who keep it running.

Don’t forget homeschool conferences. The homeschool community has this same problem, and homeschooling Calvinistas run BOTH conference circuits. Some people here in New England drive to Cincinnati every year to go to their big homeschool conference, AND then go to all the local state conferences. I don’t know why, because after a while the speakers and topics are all the same. But anyhoo, here’s a (somewhat humorous) description of your average homeschool conference (I’m sure the readers here can find similarities and crossover):

1. A huge vendor hall where you can buy lots of bad curriculum and a few good ones, and LOADS of extra toys and stuff.
2. The required cocktail of talks (parenting talks, “inspirational” talks, spouse relations/patriarchy talks, OMG TEACHING MATH IS SO HARD FOR US MOMS talks, how to help your child test out of college talks, etc.)
3. At least 2-3 big name speakers for attendees to gawk at and genuflect before.
4. A “teen track” so your teenager has something to do. Topics are limited by law to courtship/purity, creation vs. evolution, Why Republicans Are Good and Democrats Are Bad, and apologetics. Make sure you get a funny speaker who will ensure the children engage in no deep thought whatsoever.

And, in addition to the Calvinista conferences and homeschool conferences, there are also the patriarchy conferences. Sigh.

In the branch of the Church of Christ I came out of, we were “encouraged” to go to the Florida Evangelism Seminar every year. (I met my husband at one of those seminars, so at least some good came out of it. 🙂 ) It was held on the grounds of the University of Florida, and people from all over the US (and some from out of the country) would come. Kip McKean was a frequent speaker.

We were also “encouraged” to go to a yearly campus retreat and to the women’s day sponsored by the old Crossroads Church of Christ in Gainesville.

I don’t think I’d label my hometown as “Mecca” just yet (as much as Dr. Mohler may wish it so). Louisville is still close to half Catholic, and most everybody else is non-Calvinist Baptists or Methodist. Not to mention the non-denom Arminian-as-John-Wesley megachurch that draws 17K every weekend. Southern has a very visible presence but the local influence is a bit more muted than you would expect. It’s their influence on the larger sphere of Calvinistadom that is a bit more troubling. 🙂

Most ministers get conference time separate from vacation and holidays. Conferences are sort of like continuing education time off, perceived to have some benefit to the employer, who generally pays the expenses of x number of conferences or conventions per year. Many SBC pastors and other church staff get “sent” to the SBC convention and the state convention every year, fully expense paid by the church, and it is not counted as vacation or time off.

Craig, Mohler is good friends with the mega church you mention. He has had the leaders in to speak at SBTS and has done quite a few gigs with their leaders. In fact, some of the “elder rulers” at the mega have helped Highview plot their elder rule strategy without the congregation being totally aware of the backroom tactics.

Mohler is well connected in Louisville and was very involved with Metroversity. The root of the relationships Mohler has here are not “Calvinism” but “authoritarianism”. Being “guys in charge” and movers and shakers. The really funny thing is that many here will argue adamently that Ezell is not a Calvinist and that means Highview is not Calvinist. (Ezell is now pres of NAMB and funding Calvnist only Acts 29 churches). How they do this is with the point system. A 3 or 4 pointer can be a Calvinist when convenient but a non Calvinst when necessary for fooling people who hate Calvinism. It is really a great bait and switch if you think about it. And if you are around them long enough, you start picking up on how they use this tactic. Very sneaky and deceitful.

It has never been soley about Calvinism! Very few people get it. These guys are not sold out to Calvinism. They are sold out to their authority and power. Calvinism is the vehicle.

It was never really about Calvinism but control of the SBC. Calvinism is just the vehicle to taking over the SBC ….but don’t tell the young guys that…they are totally sold out. The slogan is basically, “We have truth and they don’t” or “We understand the bible and they don’t”. And the young guys totally fall for it. SBTS is considered ground zero for YRR. It is the main indoctrination center. Every movement must have a rally cry or reason to exist. For Mohler it is “If you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ there is only one place to go…New Calvinism”.

I sent that clip to a few of the elders at the formentioned mega and they were shocked but most of them are so shallow it hardly matters…they have their own authoritarian issues because they have a 30,000 electric bill to pay every month. See, people just do not know and when they know, they don’t care. They are not connecting dots. It is all about power, image, control, etc.

Never forget, the YRR need SBC money from non Calvnists to plant Calvinist churches.

There is nothing to explain why Mahaney is moving to Louisville to start a church. We have protestant churches on every corner here. But we do not have Calvinist shepherding cult churches on every corner. So why Louisville? Open arms from SBTS?

Revelation warns about these guys. The Nicolaitans. Conqueror of the people. That is all they are.
\
And to think Mohler is really just an employee of the SBC. You would think he is the pope.

By the way, Craig. There is a joke about the mega you mentioned that is completely true. It is considered the largest “Catholic” church in town. And the largest “Baptist” church in town.

Dee – agree that you all should post more about Doug “grand wizard” Wilson. The guy is a racist. I half expect him to show up to speak at one of these conferences in white robes and hat. He will handle the politics part and his session will be called “the birth of a nation”. I would protest with you!

I’ve been wondering myself why we have reduced the act of worship to singing with a group of believers? Going along with that is why so much time and money in many churches is devoted to the music and worship arena. Worship is a way of life to me, not so much about singing and music, although I like those things. I think many churches use worship and music these days as an attraction tool.

Bridget2, AMEN. As a worship/music minister myself I am in TOTAL agreement with you. Worship has a lot of facets but it seems like these days the focus is on getting an emotional high or drawing more people in with how hip and exciting our worship is. I could probably write a paper on it. 🙂

“I’m actually a former member at “Six Flags” but I currently serve at a small SBC church. Still have a lot of wonderful friendships there. I suppose I’m still naive enough to believe that these movers and shakers love Christ but are just mistaken and/or overbearing about their doctrine.”

Craig, My experience with 6 flags goes back to the original Hikes Lane location and I still have family there in official high level capacities. So I have seen the trajectory. If only the pew sitters knew what goes on….oh well. You mention overbearing in doctrine and I am thinking, ‘which doctrine and which year’. It seems to change and coincide with trying to get as many nickels and noses in the seats to continue paying all the staff ministers 6 figure salaries and send them on world travels for “missions”.(wink) I have a family member who has been all over the world on the pew sitters dime and this person is far far far from being “missional”. But most higher level staffers have traveled the world on OPM. It is considered another perk of their 30 hr work week, 6 figure income, free vactions….. job at 6 flags.

” I’ve been reading TWW since last July when the SGM mess hit the fan and it has been a real eye opener. Question for you: I know some folks involved in the Sojourn churches here but know very little about the churches themselves, other than the fact that they seem to be expanding the reach of their “brand” at a very rapid pace. Any thouhts?”

Sojourn used to be affiliated (planted) with Acts 29 until a few months ago when it hit the fan about Driscoll. They are also funded in part by the SBC. Then they issued a vague statement about starting their own brand of church plants. And they really are marketing their brand (Calvinism) with a vengence. Yes, they now have four locations in metro area.

They have a membership covenant. I have begged my friends not to sign it. So far they have not officially joined but the pressure is on. The thing about these type of churches is that they are not thrilled with folks who come and don’t join. There are arguments for and against that. But I suggest people attend for quite a while before joining these places as some are very cultic and use love bombing whch is hard to detect at first. They need time to really check it out deeply.

At 6 flags this is a huge problem. Lots of people attending who never join and lots of members who never came. However, as long as they put money in the plate and it keeps flowing in, it is not a big deal there.their published numbers have never been right. That part is a huge inside joke.

I know folks who are really impressed right now and attending Sojourn. But they are still in honeymoon phase. If you go to their site, they promote sermons by Mahaney, Dave Harvey, Dever, Driscoll, etc unless they have taken all that down in time for the convention. Who knows. But the bottom line is: It is the same guys and these are their followers.

A lot of the problem is that Americans want quick fixes- they want instant gratification and a conference that fills that empty slot in ones soul. They can feel like they are a part of the newest thing, the newest fad. The conferences will be filled with the newest evangelical lingo, so there will be this illusion that those attending will be on the cutting edge. What a crock!

“There is nothing new under the sun” says Solomon.

Dee – I would love to see you take on Doug Phillips’ extreme bigotry, as well as (cough cough) the emphasis on J.E.B. Stuart’s “Christian manhood” that seems to run rampant in many patriocentric homeschooling circles.

No offense, folks, but I do think there’s something very wrong in using military leaders of the Confederacy (the flower of Southern chivalry – ?!) as role models for kids.

I even know someone who grew up in *Maine* who heard/read all of that as a kid. (And has rejected it.)

@Dee and Deb

I’m glad that the quote resonated with you! Deb, I’d be happy for you to use it in a post, but just to clarify – it wasn’t me who said it 🙂 It from pp. 171-172 of Nancy Ortberg’s book,’Looking for God’.

The Jon Foreman song I posted a while back (‘Instead of a Show’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrY1-gPM0KY) seems relevant to this.

‘I hate all your show and pretense
the hypocrisy of your praise
the hypocrisy of your festivals
I hate all your show’

As Deb said, the fervour at these events is comparable to sporting events.

And I think this applies to both (singing) worship-orientated conferences as well as the Calvinista ones which would be characterised by so-called ‘sound teaching’, where theology junkies get their fixes and feel the satisfaction of their favourite doctrines being reiterated.

@ Bridget2

Amen!

This is a bit broad, but since the church left the liturgy, isn’t church selection and attendance influenced as much by the entertaining nature of the speaker as much as anything?

How can a mega church pastor really criticize conferences?

Having said that, I tend to believe that conferences and speaking events can be a good thing. It’s a bit like reading a lot. The more you hear, the more you can be inspired etc.

Can one become a junkie? Completely disconnected from a local congregationa and real people? Of course. But that’s an abuse, and one that should be addressed.

The other issue about conferences is the financial one. I do not have enough information to truly evaluate that. But that information should be public, in my opinion.

Come to think of it, I never knew about the finances of Billy Graham crusade. It all may have been published somewhere. I just don’t know.

I believe it would be a good thing for all of these conferences, meetings etc. to have open finances. For all I know, they do. I just don’t know.

Until I see the numbers, however, I am going to hold my fire so I don’t make an uninformed judgment.

“Those whom we label as ‘Calvinistas’ appear to flock to conferences more than other groups in Christendom. When will they reach a point where they believe they have accumulated enough Biblical wisdom that they no longer need to be a conference junkie? When will they reach a point where they far prefer sharing Jesus with those who do not know Him rather than attending the next big event?”

According to their theology: NEVER! Remember folks, New Calvinism, which is a return to hardcore Geneva-style Calvinism, operates primarily by Gospel Contemplationism. Or as John Piper states: “Beholding as a way of becoming.” Or John MacArthur: “As we gaze on Christ in the Scriptures, we are transformed from glory to glory.” So, conferences are the best way to gaze on “pictures of Jesus” because the conferences are led by the enlightened ones who are experts at “showing forth the gospel and the personhood of Jesus.”

As far as evangelism, God is going to save whoever he is going to save no matter what we do. If we just focus on more and more Jesus, God will use our “mere natural flow” to “show forth Jesus.” After all, as Michael Horton states, it’s our job to show forth the gospel, and “not try to be the gospel.”

Furthermore, now they are indoctrinating the women with the “practical application” of New Calvinism which is nothing more than Gnosticism dressed up with Bible verses. For crying out loud, it’s not even ambiguous: Justin Taylor’s ministry theme is “Between two Worlds.”

@Dee

You got it. Meanwhile, I have an idea for another conference — sent you an e-mail to that effect.

SMG

“Having said that, I tend to believe that conferences and speaking events can be a good thing. It’s a bit like reading a lot. The more you hear, the more you can be inspired etc”

Even your long time reading choices can keep you in a bubble of sorts if one is not careful. What if I only read Jane Austin or Tolstoy? I see this all the time with mongerism books and systematic theology. Going to hear the same thing said a hundred different ways is not a good thing if the foundational premise is wrong.

This is what happened back in the 80’s and 90’s when the seeker mega’s were on the rise. All the conferences were ultimately about leadership and marketing with a fish slapped on it. Whether it was Warren, Hybels, Young, etc, it was the same stuff regurgitated in different ways.

The YRR are doing pretty much the same thing but making it sound more biblical and intellectual if one can do that with Mahaney and Driscoll (Amazing how many think they are). But it is really about masculine Christianity, sex, gender, church structure and church discipline. It is just as man centered as the seekers but with a different twist.

But when your foundational premise is “we are right and everyone else does not get it”, that attracts people. It is Amway religion: Follow us and we will take you there.

The bottom line is fewer and fewer of the seminary educated young men are thinking for themselves anymore or being led by the Holy Spirit instead of man. And that does not bode well for the future of the institutional church.

Deb,

In a Spring of 2008 Chapel Message at Southeastern, Paul David Tripp delivered a message entitled “Playing With the Box.” In that message, he presented sin as a realm that could not be overcome by us anymore than the law/realm of gravity. Then he presented the gospel as a separate realm that encapsulated justification and sanctification. Throughout the message, he transitioned between salvation/gospel ideas and Christian living ideas (sanctification) without any transition of subject between the two. Pure unadulterated Gnosticism. The sin realm, and the gospel/Spirit realm. That’s why these guys believe in the total depravity of the saints. To infuse righteousness into mortality is anti-Plato/Augustine/Luther/Calvin. BTW, this issue was at the core (though not specially stated by name) of the Welch/Adams debate concerning heart/flesh and sin.

Deb,

This is nothing new, I think. I remember having discussions about “conference Christians” 15 years ago with people who occasionally attended. I think conferences now are larger and more widely advertised, and the internet has had a big influence, whereas conferences used to me more localized in smaller religious circles. Groupies are groupies, but they now have social media to help.

How much on average does it cost (travel, lodging, food, conference fee) for someone to attend one of these conferences?

As a close analogy, here’s my estimated budget for AnthroCon, a major furry fandom convention at the Pittsburgh Convention Center:

Airfare (cheap coach): $400

Hotel (5 nights in main con hotel): $600+

Meals (cheap eats downtown Pittsburgh): $100-150

Dealer’s Room/Art Show budget: $100-200

Total between $1200 and $1500. I usually arrive a day or two before the actual con (room & meal expenses) to shake off the jet lag from Los Angeles (I can’t bounce back like I used to) and generally decompress. Arriving without any time cushion would save around $200.

JJ, Bridget2, Craig, Dee, etc.

(I hope I get read here — i invested a lot into this)

My thoughts on the Nancy Ortberg quote,

“Something happened here in this room last night, there’s no doubt about it. There was an incredible amount of energy and enthusiasm and response. Some are calling it worship. I’m not yet convinced.

When the day comes that this community has the same amount of energy, enthusiasm, and responsiveness for the poor, the marginalized, and those far away from God and each other, then I will believe that what I witnessed last night was worship.

Until then, I think what we saw last night was a compartmentalized emotional catharsis, which while it might have been enjoyable, was not worship in any sense of the word.”

***************

I think what’s happening here is this phenomenon of rewriting definitions of words to fit a certain perpsective or worldview. I promise you that if you were to search Bible Gateway on the word “worship” and the hundreds of times if occurs, in almost every instance you will find accompanying words like “bow down”, “fell on their faces”. Literally — not in the modern Western sense of protocol of doing so in one’s heart while standing stoicly bolt upright in a church building on Sunday mornings.

There is nothing about the word “worship” that is not emotional, physical, spiritual, mental, all at the same time. It is celebratory, intense, experiential. At times it is done by choice.

It revives us, refocusses us, refreshes us (sorry about the “r” words). It is a healthy thing, in the way that exercise, healthy food, and hugs are — it changes us. To be perfectly honest (& perhaps all too plain), it is like sex. Orgasm. It is communion with God, and he with us. It goes back & forth, surely bringing him pleasure as it does us.

I have no doubt some readers are thinking “she thinks we can have sex with God! Scandalous trollop, that one!” Not what I’m really saying. Please give me a chance.

I think no one can deny that (1) God desires connection and communication and communion with his creatures (ugh, 4 “c” words in a row!); (2) people desire & need connection and communication and communion with other people and with God. Concerning (2), the ultimate form of that is sex. Concerning (1), the ultimate form of that is what one does when they sing, move, dance, make music, speak words of endearment, focus mentally and emotionally on the object of our highest love and respect (God, of course). And it’s a 2-way thing. Whatever “He inhabits the praises of his people” means, it surely does NOT mean God is absent.

“Worship” (as I’ve been trying to illustrate as being inherently emotional, mental, physical, & which as far as i can tell is the only way people in all cultures the world over throughout history have understood that word to mean) is great and wonderful (for us and for God), but is not and end to itself. If it is the focus to the exclusion of exercising “the same amount of energy, enthusiasm, and responsiveness for the poor, the marginalized, and those far away from God and each other”, then things are very much out of balance. Just as if a couple were to spend inordinate amounts of time in bed enjoying each other’s company to the exclusion of the many other things that are part of being a responsible citizen of world.

But it seems to me to be a lack of true reasoning to not recognize the emotional/physical/mental aspect of the word “worship”. It seems quite presumptuous to redefine the word to fit one’s viewpoint (one’s preferences? one’s prejudices?).

Why not just keep words & activities in their true categories? We can worship (which seems to have always included song or movement or sound, but definitely affection and focus). We can participate in generous and charitable service and kindness to people in our community and the world. Neither to the exclusion of the other.

And if someone expresses their affection and focus on God by such acts of service and kindness and it is worship to them, that’s great. But to take the liberty of making that THE authentic definition of “worship”, labeling anything else as “emotional catharsis”,…. well, it’s just not reasonable. (& to continue in the vein of being plain, it’s kind of snobby)

Romans 12:1 — Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

paul,

I was attending chapel services at SEBTS with some regularity in the spring of 2008, and I wasn’t even a student. I had heard of Paul Tripp back then but didn’t know much about him. I guess that’s why I didn’t go to hear him.

I’ll never forget my first time attending chapel at Southeastern. John MacArthur came, and I went with a friend to hear him. It was September 3, 2003. I remember the date because that was the day we introduced our new church (my former church) to the Raleigh community, and John MacArthur was our keynote speaker. It was an impressive event.

Anyway, while we were listening to MacArthur during chapel at Southeastern, my friend leaned over and whispered: “Do you know about the conflict that is brewing between Calvinists and Arminians?

I responded, “No, I don’t.” She then said very bluntly, “Well, you’d better learn about it!”

No, it wasn’t Dee who said it, but Dee knew her. She has since gone to be with the Lord, and her question and response still ring in my ears.

Gayle, I have done what you recommended – I’ve learned A LOT about the debate. Now Dee and I are blogging about it.

Deb:

You are right. I will be suspending my judgment indefinitely about the numbers – BUT NOT that part of my judgment that says this should all be public.

It’s just that until I see the numbers, I am not comfortable making judgments about the numbers.

The first thing I noticed about this article was MD’s vocabulary…we need to send the poor man a list of non-sexual metaphors, similies and allusions he can think about using, if his hormones will allow him. At this time I consider him a prisoner of testosterone.

@Sophie – I would pay money to see you whip a sock off & use it to mime….& as I’m very crafty I’d be delighted to make you, not a sock-monkey, but a sock-Piper that I will personally sew onto a hat so you will have the appropriate spiritual covering at all times. I know this will catch on & then I will finally have enough money to fly to the States & attend a conference. Win-win.

Re Numo’s points about JEB Stuart or Stonewall Jackson being held up as examples of manhood, I don’t know enough about US history to comment on the characters of these men. I do know however that a man may be of good character (as much as any sinner can be) and still serve an evil cause or ruler. For example, Erwin Rommel was much respected for both ability and magnamity by the British, but any discussion of his good character would nevertheless have to include why he was serving such an evil cause and master. The question is whether people use the good character of individual men to whitewash the cause they served.

Conferences are just a business. Supposively they are suppose to change a person(or renew someone). The people that I have known who went to them are still the same.

And just to add, I’ve been to many womens Bible Studies. It is a big business. I don’t know why most of the women attend. I guess to appear “spiritual” because most are far from it….

Of course if you chose not to go to neither, you are losing out on what God might have for you.

Vicki,

Love the link. This one cracked me up….so true!!!

http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2007/10/rule-94—-be-a.html

Re Doug Wilson, while I strongly disagree with many of his positions, and know of his “Southern Slavery as it was”, from what I read a few years ago, I wouldn’t say he was an outright racist. I don’t know if you remember the website LittleGeneva, but they got miffed when Wilson likened “kinism” to “skinism” and suggested people avoid “kinism”. I do think certain others though use the Confederate cause as a stalking horse for implied racial views, including those who try to make out that the Civil War was some sort of religious conflict between Trinitarian Southerners and Unitarian or liberal Northerners.

@ Kolya:

I agree, it is very difficult to find info about the religious aspects of the Civil War without encountering the neo-Confederate claptrap. That’s a pity, because the religious aspects “as they were” (pardon the pun) are actually quite fascinating. An excellent non-Confederate book on this subject is the Civil War As A Theological Crisis by Mark Noll.

What I can’t figure out is why the conservative Christian community suddenly needs to prove that slavery wasn’t so bad. Will it make them look too “liberal” if we admit that America hasn’t always been perfect? I don’t understand…

Okay Okay before we start bashing the anti-vax’ers on the Whooping Cough thing it should be noted that many if not half of the kids with whooping cough in our area of NC are VACCINATED AND UP TO DATE. I specifically made an appointment with our pediatrician because I have an immuno-suppressed child and I was told that it isn’t just the “crazy non-vaccinators” on this one.

The vaccine is not as effective as once thought.

The whooping cough bug has mutated and is somewhat of a “superbug” and is stronger than the vaccine in some cases.

Just throwing that in for educational purposes. My kids are vaccinated for most things. Guardasil & Chicken Pox Varicella shot, no.

True Words, thank you.

Thanks, Vicki.

And since his name keeps coming up in this thread, I hope you’ll check out the piece we did on Doug Wilson (Federal Vision Was All a Big Joke [LINK])

@ Kathi:

You wrote: “So, the best way to win Christians is to convert our children. And, forget those public schooled kids. Only the homeschooled kids are saved.”

Actually, this would be very much in line with historical Calvinist/Reformed reasoning. This charge (that evangelism was neglected in favor of converting churchgoers’ children) was leveled at the Puritans, and in many cases was actually true. From Edmund Morgan’s book The Puritan Family (p.174-175):

“When a New England minister preached the gospel, he did not ordinarily address himself to the masses who attended church by command of the state: he spoke either to the church members, who already had grace, or else to their children. When the Puritans were accused of neglecting the work of conversion, they denied the charge not on the ground that they converted ordinary sinners but on the ground that they converted their children. … Puritan ministers apparently tried to convert two kinds of people: hypocrites who had been admitted to membership by mistake, and the children of the godly who enjoyed membership though not converted. Not a word about the mass of men who remained in the outer darkness!”

So I guess, once again, there’s nothing new under the sun.

I staffed a Congressional hearing on vaccinations in 1978 that led to the decision to substitute a federal insurance program for tort liability for vaccine manufacturers. The data is overwhelming that negative reactions to vaccination are few and far between, and rarely severe, but some do occur. However, there is also the fact that young children are sensitive to a lot of things and there are other events in their lives, and any of those may be correlated with vaccination, and it is impossible to determine whether the vaccine is a cause or not.

The guardasil vaccination is a good protection for both males and females from severe risks associated with an infection that is most frequently transmitted by sexual activity (but not always, and not always intercourse). The vaccine is effective if given before exposure. It is not a license to have sex however, because there are many other STDs out there that also have severe consequences. The infection that the vaccine protects against is increasingly widespread and can be totally silent, until the damage is done and an often fatal cancer occurs. Why not protect a child against possible innocent exposure to this devastating plague.

Re Numo’s points about JEB Stuart or Stonewall Jackson being held up as examples of manhood, I don’t know enough about US history to comment on the characters of these men. I do know however that a man may be of good character (as much as any sinner can be) and still serve an evil cause or ruler. — Kolya

I used to hang out with some Civil War history buffs. Everything I’ve heard about Jeb Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, and Marse Robert was they were men of sterling character. Stuart was a bit of a grandstander and Stonewall was frighteningly intense (though not as much as Bedford Forrest), but in everything else they were the archetype of the Southern Gentleman.

And as for their defense of their Peculiar Institution, there were a couple of factors nobody realizes nowadays:
1) White Supremacy was believed to be as fundamental a law of Nature as gravity, on both sides of Mason-Dixon.
2) A fish doesn’t know it’s wet. When you’ve grown up within a system, it is what’s normal and you resist change. Especially when that change is being demanded of you by outsiders from the North (many of whom were from New England — trust-fund kiddies whose daddies had made their fortune importing and selling certain Animate Property to the South).
3) And that every culture has their blind spots. Theirs are blatantly obvious to us, 150+ years later. What are ours?

What I can’t figure out is why the conservative Christian community suddenly needs to prove that slavery wasn’t so bad. Will it make them look too “liberal” if we admit that America hasn’t always been perfect? I don’t understand… — Hester

So they’re not just getting nostalgic for the mythology that accreted around the Confederate States (i.e. the Southern Gentleman and the Lost Cause), but actually their Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property?

Hi elastigirl

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

My intention in sharing the quote wasn’t to deny or downplay the authenticity of people’s communion with God through praise and song. And I don’t believe that Nancy Ortberg, in sharing that experience, intended to do that either.

As it says in the verse you mentioned, ‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:1-2) Yes, worship is deep communion with God, an affective, consuming adoration. And it also encompasses the renewal of our minds, embodying sacrificial living and discerning God’s will. It’s all worship. It’s all part of presenting ourselves as living sacrifices.

I don’t think that the term ‘worship’ is being rewritten to “fit a certain perspective or worldview”. You seem to be drawing a distinction between musical/emotional worship and other forms of worship (teaching scripture, sacrificial living, community with others, work etc). We both agree that these activities need to balance and interact with one another. But I don’t think one can categorise musical praise as ‘worship’ and place other expressions outside that definition.

The excerpt from Nancy Ortberg meant a lot to me because I have witnessed the hype and emotionalism that can masquerade as worship. I still agree with Nancy’s identifying the ‘emotional catharsis’ element in many praise services. And part of my point was that the same kind of hype can prevail at bible-based preaching-heavy conferences where people can ride a brief emotional high that sadly can be divorced from any renewed commitment to selfless, Christlike living.

To illustrate this point using your sex analogy: if a couple has an active sex life, but is inconsiderate to each other in all other arenas – well, it casts doubt on the authenticity of their relationship. It makes their claims of love ring false. And the shallowness of one relationship doesn’t make all other sexual relationships unloving.

One of the points of the quote was that people can feed off the intensity of the emotional experience, and seek it out, because it does indeed provide a form of shared catharsis. As Nancy Ortberg said in a later paragraph, ‘That night, I observed hundreds of people getting caught up in the way the singing made them feel, even though many of them were divorced from God in most other areas of their lives.’ Separated from a life that is being transformed, and a mind that is being renewed, these intense emotional expressions appear merely self-gratifying and inauthentic.

Isaiah 29:13 ‘…these people draw near with their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me…’

You said the quote showed a “lack of true reasoning”, was “presumptuous” and “quite snobby”. I don’t think so. I don’t agree that it pragmatically redefined worship, or that it labelled all forms of affective worship “emotional catharsis”. In fact, I think it brought the definition of worship into fuller perspective: as a communion with God that encompasses many aspects – emotional adoration, and a lifestyle that turns from selfishness to selflessness and being more like Christ. It’s about being a ‘living sacrifice’, about one’s whole life being worship.

I didn’t share the quote to deny the real all-encompassing experience of praising God, and the excerpt didn’t dismiss that reality either. We differ in how we categorise these expressions, but I believe we’re on the same page, Elastigirl 🙂

@ HUG:

That’s the thing. None of them seem to be saying we should re-enslave anybody. But for some reason, they feel driven to prove that slavery as an institution is okay, and this gets extended to Southern slavery (even though it matches none of the criteria for “acceptable” slavery in the Old Testament). Probably yet another tenet of Reconstructionism/Dominionism seeping into people’s minds as that theology continues to implant itself deeper in the American Christian mindset.

” haves been reading a book about the SBC takeover. In it, the authors discuss how the inerrancy issue was used to fool people into thinking that anyone who did not agree with them was unbiblical. Same game, different name this time.

”

I must have missed this one. One of the most telling things for me is to read the SBC blogs and see the middle aged guys who were the equivalent of the “in your face” young YRR guys in the early days of the CR takeover of the SBC, now freaking out over the angry YRR guys who want to take over. What comes around goes around. The CR was about power but at least their reasons made more sense. There were a few (not a lot we know now) profs at SBC seminaries teaching things like no virgin birth, etc. So they took a few examples and blew it into a full blown crisis to take over the SBC.

There used to be 40,000 messengers (lay people mostly) attending conventions back in the early 90’s. Now they are lucky to have 6 thousand attending and they are mostly church staff people. So, I think that means the CR was successful. Only the leaders are really involved now. No more priesthood. Mohler is proud.

Now, the issue is Calvinism because “Calvinism is the real thing” and our “founders were Calvinists”.

Same tactics: We are the “real” Christians. We have the “truth” and they don’t. The non Calvinsts are just too ignorant to see it. And there is your rallying cry for a takeover using the young and ignorant.

All that is left is that Al Mohler wants the money the non Calvinists give to the SBC to plant more Calvinist churches and once it has reached the target then he is the pope of Geneva and won’t need non Calvnist money anymore or he has made them de facto Calviists (perhaps a 3 pointer because they are in the Calvinist club whether they like it or not).

But we all know there are plenty of church buildings in the US. But they are not the right kind. The Nicolaitans want churches they control.

All of this has only made me move further and further away from any institutionalized form church at all.

I went to ONE “Promise Keepers” conference. Paid $75 to get in, and they took up an offering. Biggest waste of time.

Went to a “Marriage Conference,” Friday night and Saturday. Another waste of time. And those there were only hawking their books.

I have gone to several “Pastors Conferences.” By far the most unsociable people I have ever met.

I don’t go to conferences anymore…

I’ve always loved the expression “government school.”

But let’s face it: the cafeterias are one of the few places you can still get a good slice of “government cheese.”

JJ,

Thanks for your reply. That does make a lot of difference.

There are normal homeschoolers around. We are a small minority but we’re around 🙂

Yes! We must. As soon as softball/baseball/volleyball is done for me in a few weeks we shall make a date 🙂

I’m not far from Winston either 🙂

Anon1 – many sincere thanks for that slice of history/info.! I did not know that… and, sadly, it makes complete sense to me.

If you check out some of the better general-reader-type books on the early collectors of music played and sung by African Americans during the antebellum ear, you’re in for a shock – because almost every music researcher went to white informants rather than actually spending time with – and talking to – black folks.

It gets super-creepy, as these white “informants” tended to wax eloquent on the supposed good ol’ days when race relations were wonderful. They truly believed that abolition had destroyed ***black*** culture and that those who were enslaved ***benefited from it in every way.***

Talk about cognitive dissonance to the 100th power!!!

*

Hester – re. Patrick Henry, you know it!

A couple of years ago I had some not-so-happy exchanges with a Patrick henry grad (in his early 30s, an attorney) who loved to go on and on about so-called “standards” for “manhood” and “womanhood.”

At present, he is making arguments about absolute standards for aesthetic beauty… as someone who studied the arts, I just cannot fathom where (or how) he comes up with his arguments – and he handles them as if he’s talking about case law.

The thing is, what he ends up saying is pretty subjective – and very much based on his personal tastes – but he doesn’t see that (yet).

Hi, JJ.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. My favorite thing in the world to do, I think. Smalltalk? nah – I’d much rather explore the meaning of “beauty”, or “peace”, or hatching a plan of escape to Iceland with a kindred spirit over beverages of choice and a candle in a lowlit place. (anyone?)

–re: “You seem to be drawing a distinction between musical/emotional worship and other forms of worship (teaching scripture, sacrificial living, community with others, work etc).”

Let me refine my thoughts here: Where the concept of “worship” is concerned, I do see a distinction between (a) affection & mental/emotional focus (often accompanied by music, sound, physical expressions of some kind), and (b) task-oriented horizontal things like teaching, work, sacrificial living, community with others. We can do these things in (b) with sincere hearts, do them for God and because of God and rely on God to join with us to bring a dunamis power element to the results of our human effort. While we do these things, we can take a moment out here & there to say, in one way or another, “You’re the best, God”. Or perhaps, some of us can multitask and do the tasks/horizontal things while at the same time “streaming” a “You’re awesome, God”. In each case, we’re incorporating “worship” into what we’re doing.

But to call activities that are cerebral, administrative, task-oriented, social, or involving physical labor “worship” (if done because of God, for God) to me just redefines all the mystery & wonder out of the word (in the sense of the word as I’ve been describing).

I can think of 2 things that shaped my point of view here. One was a number of years ago when my husband & I were playing on the “worship team” (me on piano, he on bass). Even calling it a “worship team” – ugh – reducing it all down to task and function. Someone made the comment “Will we see you at worship practice tonight?”, referring to our weekly rehearsal – ugh aGAIN! But all we were doing was going over songs, who starts, key changes, transitions, solos, ….. so, in practice, this thing called “worship” has become merely a series of tasks.

The 2nd thing that shaped my thinking was watching John Kerry visit a large church on a Sunday morning when he was running for president. He strides up to the podium and says something like “It’s so good to be here to worship the Lahrd” (annoying voice & all). It was on network news. I know nothing about his spiritual convictions, other than they had absolutely nothing to do with why he was there that day. So, what I observed was equating merely being in a church building, in a pew on a Sunday morning as “worship”. Heck, even political campaigning is “worship” if one does it on a Sunday morning in a church building.

Ever since, I’ve noticed the word “worship” tossed around as a label for task and function in this institutionalized system of spirituality. Something as wondrous and mysterious as making connection with the God of the universe….. all organized down into a system. Unbearable.

******
–re: “I have witnessed the hype and emotionalism that can masquerade as worship”

Could it be a matter of what one is used to? Could it have simply been exhuberance? Enjoying it for what it was? Corporate singing, making music, focusing on God with affection can be highly pleasurable. A celebration. And I do believe he responds back with his affection to us. It makes me wonder what’s the problem with something being pleasurable? I do think that Chrisitianity often has difficulty with “pleasure”. It is suspect. Doesn’t mesh with “taking up one’s cross”. Rings with “carnality”.

I agree with you that a brief emotional high divorced from renewed commitment to selfless, Christlike living is not how it should be. But what is wrong with exhuberance for God, in and of itself? Is 20 minutes acceptable? 45 minutes acceptable? But anything over an hour is just hype. Especially once people start moving a little too much. And jumping? Twirling? Hype for sure. Seeming to drink something in with their whole body? Now we’re moving into scary! (I know I sound a little snarky here – I’m sorry – I’ve just hit an artery of my conviction here) I daresay God’s presence and affection flowing down on someone is deeper pleasure than anything else in the universe and a catharsis emotional, spiritual, physical maybe will happen. And rightly so. Would we expect anything less from God’s affection? I’m not talking about “doctrine” about the love of God – I’m talking about affection that God has for us. Something in the moment, not in a textbook.

************
–re: Isaiah 29:13 ‘…these people draw near with their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me…’

Great verse. Fully applicable. And I think that one can draw near with their mouth and honor God with their lips and find high pleasure in the exhuberance of it, to the point of catharsis, and have a heart that is near to God (rather than one that is far from him).

***********
Chances are you agree with much of what I wrote above. I don’t mean to argue with you. Like I said, I hit an artery of my convictions on the topic . I apologize if he seemed to poo poo the excerpt from Nancy Ortberg that I know has meant a lot to you.

I’m now far spent. TTFN

One of the most telling things for me is to read the SBC blogs and see the middle aged guys who were the equivalent of the “in your face” young YRR guys in the early days of the CR takeover of the SBC, now freaking out over the angry YRR guys who want to take over. — Anon1

Anyone remember the last scene of the 1968 satirical movie Wild in the Streets?

“Don’t trust anyone over 12.”

From reading the NT, I do not see that we were ever intended to be an a perpetual audience sitting in pews listening to one guy week after week. Most of this sort of preaching went on outside of the Body meeting.

But nowadays we call it part of “worship” which is probably true since it seems to be a sort of worship of the speaker who is in many cases a mini celeb.

And don’t get me started about it all being a performance. All my years backstage with mega’s prove this is very very true. To them, it was like putting on a weekend show.

There was one mega I know of that you were not allowed on their stage if you were deemed (in their opinion) more than 40 lbs overweight. So fat people were not allowed on stage. In fact, one staffer was put on probation about being on stage until he lost the weight. Pretty embarassing since everyone on the 500+ staff knew and was watching.

Hi, JJ. Thanks for continuin’ on here. So, you’re in South Africa! The place I’d most like to visit, actually. Where in S.A.?

I live in California, and have read many Wilbur Smith books. Are you familiar with him? The series about Sean and Gary Courtney’s lives from childhood onward. My favorite: The Burning Shore, about the young girl from France in WWI, volunteering as a nurse, falls in love with Sean Courtney’s son (a S.A. pilot stationed in France), she ends up on a hospital ship bound for South Africa, ship sinks, she makes it to shore, makes her way through the Kalahari Desert, meets a San couple who help her survive…. amazing adventure. It’s all so incredibly vivid — i feel like I’ve already spent much time in South Africa (mostly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, though).

Also really loved his book Eagle In The Sky (south african young man who finds himself as a pilot in Israel’s military — more amazing adventure and story about life).

Iceland — it just seems so delightfully remote — it seems so entirely removed from whatever junk is happening in America, the middle east, etc. (not really true, though). Maybe it’s that it’s comletely removed from the constant mess and noise in my house, and the interpersonal drama of the hour. That much IS true.

To continue our conversation: Where something as complex and multifaceted and rich and mysterious and personal as spirituality is concerned, I really balk at systems and rules (set up by a relative few for everyone else to conform to). Get claustrophobic just typing those words.

One of the slogans and “selling points” of popular christianity is that “it’s a relationship, not a religion”. (kind of like “hate the sin, love the sinner” — often very empty words that are anything but accurate).

Relationship is knowing and being known by someone, in real time, each reaching out to and responding to the other. By “religion”, the idea is a set of rules one must follow to know God.

Now, a group of people are making music, singing, shouting, cheering, swaying, dancing, jumping, reaching with their physical bodies as an expression of reaching with their spiritual selves, receiving with their physical bodies as an expression of receiving with their spiritual selves. Another group (or individual) observes this and discounts it by deeming it emotional hype. What they are actually saying is that this is inappropriate, and what it makes it so is that it crosses some universal boundary of what is right and what isn’t — it infringes upon a rule, a set of rules.

Now, you tell me — of the approaches of the 2 groups in the illustration, which one is more about relationship? which one is more about religion?

(I’m sorry, i sound like I’m aruging with you and Nancy Ort. Please don’t take it as such)

I also realize the illustration works in the converse (people accustomed to exhuberant, expressive worship passing judgement on more inward forms of worship that aren’t observable outwardly). I’m actually wanting to work on more contemplative things myself.

I think it’s very unhealthy and just plain foolish to have a one-size-fits-all approach to spiritual things. God things. Behavior & lifestyle things in relation to these. To impose a limited set of “ways” on others clearly conveys small-mindedness, immaturity, and poor character (lack of imagination; prejudice, need for control, need for recognition, desire for power).

The 2nd thing that shaped my thinking was watching John Kerry visit a large church on a Sunday morning when he was running for president. He strides up to the podium and says something like “It’s so good to be here to worship the Lahrd” (annoying voice & all). — Elastigirl

Senator J.F.Kerry. Poor sods who were in that church having to listen to him. Guy’s a cartoon of himself — wanna bet his next sentence started out “When I Served In Vietnam…”?

Headless —

Yes, I think quite a few professional christians knowingly do things this way to make their medicine go down, and to warm up the crowd for their turn in the limelight. (Little do they know how many people are actually making their shoppings lists, lunch plans, & general zoning out.)

Many others of these p.c.’s simply don’t ponder, deeply or not, beyond the confines of “the way things are is the way things are”.

I really dislike being a part of such an unimaginative subculture.

Randall Slack-May 19 10:42,

Yeah, they only socialize with those who they feel can do something for them and with those who will stroke their huge egos… What a contradiction……

” Why is it so many of the experts on being a woman are male?”

LOL, so true…

Why is it so many of the experts on being a woman are male?

Classic. What’s Piper’s next lecture on? Being a good Korean?

Hi, Kolya.

re: “professional christians” — I can’t help but feeling that a large reason behind the push for small groups, becoming a “member”, etc. is job security for said professionals. Justifies their job. It creates need. Creates work for them to do. And revenue. When in actual fact knowing God & pursuing God is free, he’s available EVERY day of the week at any hour, there are any number of things the people I know who are spiritually like-minded can plan to do together in our God pursuits…

I truly appreciate the staff at our church — they are great. But at the same time these thoughts are very abrasive to my common sense.

@ Sleepless in Seattle

“While Mark Driscoll does make a good point about the conference addicts and all of the fanboys (and girls), I wish he would follow through then and stop speaking at conferences/talk shows, stop putting himself up on a pedestal, and stop tweeting out every thought he has that often just stirs up the drama and/or incites mans’ empty praise of MD.”

Good point! Makes me think of the notorious interview MD gave in England in which he criticised the church there: ‘name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem’.

“Why is it so many of the experts on being a woman are male?

Classic. What’s Piper’s next lecture on? Being a good Korean?”

After a while, women begin to realize that these male experts on “womanhood” are not experts on what actual, real, living, breathing, human women (created in God’s image) should be. They are experts on what they want women to be. What they want is a plastic, shallow, less-than-fully-human, pared down version that vaguely resembles some woman somewhere that they like. This perfect woman can borrow components from their mothers, sisters, cousins, old girlfriends, unattainable women of their past, fashion models, pinup girls, story book or movie or Bible characters, or some sort of conglomeration of any number of these. They internally form this conglomeration into what they believe will serve them best or make them look good. You know… some sort of made up human being that will complement them, or rather, the fantasy version of themselves in their own heads.

It’s all about the way things work in the fantasy world they have concocted where they get to be the boss of another person who is always smiling because she wants to be bossed. I’ve seen Piper nearly in tears over this perfect and joyfully submitted woman who displays the suffering servant side of Christ. It is so beautiful to him and such an important part of his Biblical Manhood/Womanhood fantasy. Too bad it is so self-serving and man serving, bordering on idoloty.

Excellent post, Mara!

It’s all about the way things work in the fantasy world they have concocted where they get to be the boss of another person who is always smiling because she wants to be bossed. I’ve seen Piper nearly in tears over this perfect and joyfully submitted woman who displays the suffering servant side of Christ. — Mara

Smiling and in tears? I’d expect heavy breathing and a hand in the pants — that’s a Stepford Wife Sexual Fantasy right there. A Christianese variant of the Perfect Porn Star who stays locked in my private personal harem. “Yes, Master?”