book review--Jesus Killed My Church by Randy Bohlender

Rubbernecking Literature

I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.


A few times while driving on the interstate, I've come on traffic back-ups. These weren't cases where traffic came to a complete stop, but rather where it slowed almost to a crawl, but still kept inching forwards. Usually, it turned out that, somewhere up ahead, somethind had happened, and as the drivers were passing by they were slowing down and turning their heads to try to get a look at whatever had happened.

That's basically what this book is, a bit of rubbernecking as one looks at the wreck of a church.

It's an interesting enough book, so far as it goes. The writer relates the account in a fairly interesting way, with bit of humor thrown in. It wasn't a dull book to read.

But getting into the substance of it, it isn't too hard to see some pretty troubling things. As the title of the book indicated, the author claims that "Jesus Killed My Church". Frankly, if so, it was an act of kindness. This guy has a bloodhound's nose for finding the worst of the worst in false teachers and false revivals, as his accounts of pilgrimages to Pensacola and IHOP KC very well indicate. Sadly, he seems to think that he should join up with those people, or emulate them, rather than get as far away from them as possible.

Two things stood out for me in this book.

One was the inherent unreliability of these people who spend their lives making their decisions based on vague feelings. This author recounts two times when he was offered ministry positions, presumably by people who had thought their feelings were God's way of saying that they should offer him those positions, and each time he decided against accepting those positions because "it didn't feel right" (p 67).

So, which side was correct? Were the people offering him the position understanding their own feelings correctly, or did he understand the vague feelings correctly when he turned them down? Or, was God sending mixed signals? I seriously doubt the latter, so that just leaves the dilemma of trying to understand which side was hearing God more correctly than the other.

Another, even more disturbing, thing had to do with a woman who came to him, because she was worried that she had ESP because she felt some strange things and had repetitive dreams. At least from the account in the book, found on pages 110-111, instead of trying to determine if she needed some psychological help or even spiritual deliverance, they immediately tell her "You have a prophetic spirit".

Where does the Bible say that this is how a prophetic spirit operates? When God sent a prophetic dream or vision to a prophet, there was no doubt that it was from God. It was people like Pharoah in Genesis, and Nebuchanezzar in Daniel, essentially pagan rulers, who received dreams from God but they didn't know the source of the dreams until Joseph or Daniel explained things to them.

Also, there is simply the fact that this woman's feelings and dreams, concerning a certain building this pastor was wanting to obtain for his church, turned out to be false. They didn't happen. His church never acquired that building before Jesus killed it. In fact, if this was the former College Football Hall of Fame building near King's Island near Cincinnati, since this man's church was in or near Cincinnati, then that building was torn down in 2004, which means that her feelings and dreams cannot ever happen. This confirms that whatever was giving this woman these feelings and dreams, whether only her own mind or some kind of spiritual influence, was not from God.

If Jesus killed this man's church, maybe it was because it simply needed killing. Judging simply from what he writes, his mains concerns were with being different, getting the atmosphere right, and all kinds of frivolous things.

Probably the main profit one can get from this book is learning how NOT to pastor a church. Don't rely on vague feelings that the Bible never says are God's way of speaking to us. Don't get hung up on being different. Don't think you're such a big brave man because you went and got an earring. Don't think someone's dream or vision is from God simply because it agrees with what you want. Don't think you're called to be a pastor simply because some church plays a song by a band that you like. And, please, stay away from anyone associated with the false Pensacola revival, IHOP KC, The Call, or the NAR in general.

a bit of something funny

I found this amusing.



I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02

movie review--madea's witness protection

I know that Tyler Perry's Madea movies are fairly popular in Christian circles. I think that he has been a guest at some pretty big mega-churches, for example Joel Osteen's. Up until recently, I had not seen any of these movies, but with the release of "Madea's Witness Protection", I thought I'd take a gander of it.

First, let me mention some of the good (or at least, not all that offensive) parts in it. A part of the story does involve an aging pastor who has been ill and is looking to retire, and who wants to leave his congregation is good shape by having the church's mortgage paid off. There are some scenes during the church's worship, where Jesus does get mentioned in the songs they are singing. There is a bit of a pro-family message. And, in the biggest miracle of the entire movie, Denise Richardson's performance isn't entirely cringe-worthy (sorry, flashbacks to her as a Bond girl).

Having said all that...

The language used during the movie is horrible. While it does stop short of dropping F-bombs, almost everything short of that is used extensively. Madea gets upset when the daughter in the family staying with them expresses herself in language that Madea herself uses quite frequently. Madea encourages the young mother to "speak your d--- mind", and does so in a profanity-heavy way.

Along with that, the humor is often crude and vulgar. I'm still trying to scrub my brain clean from the conversation Madea's brother Joe had with the husband of the family staying in their house for protection, because it was nothing but vulgar.

There were some pretty funny moments in the movie, and the message wasn't bad, and I've no wish to doubt Perry's intentions. But why does he consider that using crude language and vulgar humor to be appropriate? Is the good message of the movie not seriously damaged by the crude sexual comments and the profanities? Is this what he thinks he must do to "cross over", to make his movies more acceptable to a general audience and not just church-folks? And if so, is it worth it?

Because though the message of the movie may not have been bad, how Christian was it? Where, for example, was the man who had been involved in the financial scandal told that Christ died to forgive what he had done, even if his sin was more of neglect and weakness than actually wanting to cheat others? Where is the rebellious daughter told to ask God to forgive her rebellion, not just against her family but against God Himself? Where was something like a clear presentation of the Gospel?

I really wish I could recommend this movie, but I simply in good conscience cannot.

the cute is overwhelming!!

down memory gutter

A few days ago, I wound up going back to a place online that I frequented a few years ago, and went back over a bit of an exchange I had with some of the regulars there at that time. It was interesting, and a bit amusing. It'd been a while since I'd been there, and judging by how most of their recent posts have comments turned off, I doubt I'll frequent it much again, except out of morbid curiosity, maybe.

Here's the main entry, the point around which we were discussing or debating or something worse.

WASHINGTON, DC — April 1, 2009 — In an announcement that stunned the nation, Barack Obama called a press conference today to state that he is stepping down as President of the United States. Effective immediately, Hugh Beaumont will assume the role. Mr Obama also said that Joe Biden is being replaced by Ozzie Nelson. Similar replacements are taking place throughout Congress, although it is reported that Nancy Pelosi has locked herself in her office.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.

I'll not give much in the way of what the exchanges were like in the comments area, as it pretty much quickly degenerated into a gang-up. They are still on the site, if you wish to read them. My tactic or strategy was, well, pretty interesting, even now. Mostly, I insisted on asking the same questions over and over, in an insistence on getting the others to answer those questions, while also refuting in as simple a way as possible their attempts to attribute wrong motives to me.

Take a look at the contents of the blog entry. I said that this entry showed the hate that was in them, both the one who wrote it and those who approved it. It showed the hatred they had towards those who dared to disagree with them, and attributes to those people the vilest of things. It was a hateful attack on those who dare to disagree with, among other things, the election of Obama, accusing them of having a distrust in God and trusting instead in government and the country (rather a silly claim, really, when you consider that it is people like Obama and those who support him who are pushing for the government to become the main provider of all things). And it claims that those types of people would kick Jewish people out of country clubs (would they send them to prison camps, too) and kill black people. The hate in this piece of "satire" is blindingly obvious.

Amazing how impossible it was to get them to see that.

It was C.S. Lewis who somewhere in his writings made a bit of a comment about humor, something along the lines that one could get approval for almost anything, could get approval for evil acts, if one could get others to laugh at it. Is this not almost self-evident? From the clever word-play of "Who's On First", we have degenerated to the place where profanity and comedy are almost synonymous, to the place were comedy is used to make less offensive the most immoral of sexual acts and lifestyles, where those who oppose those acts and lifestyles are held up for ridicule in those same comedies, where we are encouraged to laugh at things that should offend and shame us.

So, when the other commentors tried to defend the entry by calling it a satire, it didn't really matter to me. It's kind of like saying "Hey, I'm going to write something comparing those who disagree with me of wanting to ban Jewish people and kill black people, but hey, don't take me seriously, I'm only joking". Yeah, I wasn't going to let them off the hook that easily.

Honestly, I had been commenting there for some time, and things had already degenerated. I can't remember all the things leading to this degeneration, but one I do remember quite clearly is when they got on the case, I thought unfairly, of one of their favorite targets, and I came to her defense.

Strange, how right she has been proven, concerning the young celebrity in question. Sad, yes, but also right. But concerning myself, it was eye-opening to see how much vitriol and hate the commentors at this blog had towards this woman. It wasn't just simple disagreement, it was personal, and they were personally attacking her.

So, when I starting making the comment that "You become what you hate", I knew what I was seeing, and how true that statement was. It would have been one thing if they had voiced reasoned and considered disagreement, but these people were not just crossing lines but running full-tilt over them while laughing about it and denying that they were doing it. And the hatred they denied having became directed at commentors like myself who dared to disagree with them, question them, say that they were wrong.

I don't think it's too very wrong of me to feel some satisfaction at the state of that online place now. They've changed the name, and it looks like it's not near as busy as it was. The problem with an echo-chamber is that it becomes really dull after a while, hearing the same things over and over again. Why else have places like Emergent Village come almost to a stand-still? Why do they have to go to more and more extremes to try to maintain interest? For example, EV's attempt last year to portray God as being an unfaithful lover. Perhaps they should thank the occasional person like myself who stumbles over their sites, voices a bit of disagrement, and gives the hangers-on an enemy to rally against for a while.

Perhaps the best thing people like me can do is to keep away from places like the old and new Emergent Village, the theOoze, this 3Ps blog I've linked to above, or what have you, and let them die away from boredom, fade away from the silence resounding through the echo chamber, and let the people there feel the existential angst of knowing that they are no longer relevant, while they get sick of trying to top each other in writing the most ridiculous things.

It's a thought, and not a bad one, either.

irony, rich irony

Oh, it makes me want to wax poetic. But since my poetry has been known to make Vogons bleed from the ears, I will refrain.

First, a bit from this article, which I may comment on further sometime later.

Generation Justice by Palmer Chinchen

The contrast to prior generations is striking. I went through college with the Yuppie Generation. We were a self-indulgent lot. Everyone wanted to drive a Beemer, wearing a Member’s Only jacket — with the collar popped on their pastel Izod.

Not this generation. They wear Tom’s shoes because Tom puts shoes on bare feet in places like Bolivia. They’ve made scooters cool again because you can ride a hundred miles on a gallon of gas. They embrace simplicity because they want to share more with people who have less. That’s the heartbeat of Generation Justice

Ok, having read that, a few moments later I then read this.

An Open Letter to TOMS and BOBS Shoes (by Tammy Fuller)

TOMS and BOBS: I wish to serve notice. I find your practices unethical… no, not the fact that you give a pair of shoes away to children in need, but the fact that you boast that it’s an act of generosity.

You, in fact, assemble your shoes (which are no modern marvels of lasting quality or art) in nations which employ unfair labor practices and often child labor. Then, you charge exorbitant amounts for said shoes, which the materials and assembly are below par. Your profit margin skyrockets with your laughably lining your pockets at a criminal level. To top it all off, you “generously” and “charitably” “give” a pair of shoes to a child in need. What about those who you unfairly employ? Your greed only gets you so far with the public who no longer brainlessly buys into your charade of charitability. Your marketing campaign is no longer acceptable.

I wish I knew someone in the WWE. I would love to schedule a match between these two writers. Maybe a Tables/Ladders/Chairs match, with two different objectives--Chinchen would have to climb the ladder to get down a pair of TOMS, while Fuller would need to get down a pair of Nikes. How about that match at next years Wrestlemania?

one of God's coolest critters!!

Nature's Great Survivors: Water Bears

I first learned about water bears from seeing some toys of them in boxes of Giant Microbes in stores. Reading the bit of information about them which is on the attached card, they seemed like really cool critters--slow little mites which just kinda meander about minding their own business, and which are almost impossible to kill. They can survive in space, in extreme temperatures hot and cold, they can survive dehydration and really extreme radiation.


So, forget zombies!!! We all must prepare for the coming tardigrade invasion!!! They are already amongst us!!! Watch your step!!!

:-)

a delicious hierarchy!

happy!

sometimes football is a generous sport

I was hoping Baltimore would beat Pittsburgh--kind of like both teams, but slightly favor the Ravens. Even with an ugly second half, they could have pulled it off if they had some receivers who could do their jobs at the most basic level (catch passes).

I'm now in a quandary. Who to cheer for now? Jets are a good team, but a joke. Pittsburgh's ok, though the QB's antics off-field leave a bad taste. Ambivalent about both da Bears and da Pack.

just so's you knows

a little shy of a full deck

What else can you say, when a supposed news channel has this as a caption.

Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant

Umm...no. By definition, being in the country illegally was already a crime, before Arizona passed its recent bill.

Yep, deep thoughts from MSNBC. No, please, you don't need to thank me.

dilbert is my hero

The last line of this comic had me in stitches, which also explains why it's now in the header. Rather apropo, some may say.

says it all

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

getting those funny looks

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

if i could give you one bit of advice...

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

the cuteness was overwhelming

see more dog and puppy pictures

I couldn't help it. Far...too...cute...!!

a humorous fix

A secretary to be feared!