Send Bibles Now! October 18, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
Right now, tens of thousands of Bibles are needed for in-home Bible studies, underground churches and whole communities of believers in Southeast Asia. A recent report in Asia Times says Asia is projected to become one of the largest Christian populations in the world, on pace to eclipse Europe in the next thirty years. There is a huge need for Bibles to keep up with the growth. Many of these new believers have never held a copy of the Scriptures in their hands, let alone owned one of their own.
I want to send 3500 Bibles to these new believers in Southeast Asia. I need your help to do it. Bible League can print, ship and distribute one copy of the Bible for just $4.00. The Bible you carry to church probably cost you ten times that much. Think about this for a moment: for the same amount of money you paid for your Bible, you can send ten Bibles through Bible League to believers in Southeast Asia.
Will you please make a one time gift of $40 to Bible League? Call 1-800-YES-WORD to donate or give securely online at www.sendbiblesnow.com/wlqv. That $40 will provide Bibles for a small group of believers who gather in Southeast Asia to study the word of God together.
“The reports of my mugging have been greatly exaggerated…” October 17, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Air America, Jon Elliott, Randi Rhodes.2 comments
Air America is bankrupt for a reason: American’s won’t buy its liberal lies and slander. A shining example of Air America’s penchant for exaggeration, outright lies, and potential libel comes from their late night host Jon Elliott.
Elliott is the self-described, “most dangerous liberal in America” and now we know why. After unsubstaniated reports that another Air America host, Randi Rhodes, had been mugged outside her NYC apartment on Monday evening, Elliott took to the airwaves on his own program Tuesday evening to implicate conservatives in the dastardly deed:
“Is this an attempt by the right-wing hate machine to silence one of our own? Are we threatening them?”
Now it turns out that no police report was ever filed by Randi Rhodes because no mugging ever took place. A statement today on the Air America website says that Rhodes “experienced an unfortunate incident,” and that “reports of a presumed hate crime are unfounded.”
Air America and its hosts villianize Rush Limbaugh, taking his words about “phoney soldiers” out of context, demanding that the United States Congress strip him of his right to free expression. Jon Elliott’s careless words are not being taken out of context and the unfounded reports of a presumed hate crime against Randi Rhodes perpetrated by conservatives originated with Air America! What will Air America do to hold its host, Jon Elliott, accountable for his carelessness?
For Osteen, Theology is Optional October 16, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Church Marketing, Joel Osteen, Megachurch, Prosperity Gospel, Theology.16 comments
“I try to leave them better off than they were before,” is how Joel Osteen defined the endgame for his multi-million dollar ministry of self-help and empowerment during a twelve minute segment on CBS’ 60 Minutes titled, “Joel Osteen Answers His Critics.” Far from answering his critics, the segment may have given Osteen critics more fodder.
In twelve short minutes Osteen managed to admit that his ministry is more about show than substance, that he has an aversion to doctrine and theology, that he has no gifting as a teacher of God’s word, that he would rather inspire and motivate people than fulfill the biblical mandate given to pastors to reprove and rebuke, and that what he teaches is closer to Dr. Phil and Oprah than it is to Jesus or St. Paul. In plainer words, Joel Osteen, by his own admission, may be well-qualified as a motivational speaker but lacks many of the qualifications to be considered a shepherd and pastor of God’s people.
Byron Pitts, the correspondent for CBS News who interviewed Osteen for the segment, was relentless in pointing out where Osteen’s teaching diverges from Scripture and historic orthodoxy. At one point Pitts read for Osteen an extended excerpt from Osteen’s just released, Become a Better You, after which Pitts noted, “[There’s] not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that.” To which Osteen responded, “There is Scripture in there that backs it all up,” a response which betrays the flippant yet dangerous way in which Osteen handles Holy Scripture.
Osteen doesn’t understand that we don’t bring our conclusions about life and living to the Bible and seek Scripture to support them. We start with the Bible, handling the text very carefully, allowing the Holy Spirit, the author of the text, to give to us His conclusions about life and living. The Bible isn’t supporting documentation for principles you’ve dreamed up to produce your best life now.
Osteen readily admits that he is ill-equipped to handle Scripture properly, telling Pitts, “…there’s a lot better people qualified to say, ‘Here’s a book that’s going to explain the scriptures to you.’ I don’t think that’s my gifting.” He spends Wednesday through Saturday in his study at home preparing his weekly message. One might imagine that he is diligently studying the Scriptures. Not so. He told Byron Pitts, “…when I think about it, Sunday’s in a few days and I gotta get back up here and feed everybody and be my best and inspire them and have some good stories, keep them listening…” No where in Scripture is the man of God commanded to “be my best” and “inspire them” and “have some good stories” or even to “keep them listening.” On the contrary, the word of God makes it clear that we are not sufficient in ourselves to proclaim God’s word (2 Corinthians 3:5,6), it isn’t our goal to inspire but rather to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort,” and we accomplish that goal, not with “some good stories,” but with “all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:1-6). Doctrine is not even on Osteen’s radar. Osteen told Pitts his calling is not to impress people with “Greek words and with doctrine.” Rather, he views his calling as helping people “have the right thoughts today.” While Osteen may not consider teaching God’s word his gifting, God nonetheless demands that those who lead God’s church have an ability to teach His word (1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24). Osteen has disqualified himself on this point.
Osteen measures the success of his ministry not by the spiritual growth of his congregation but by “hundreds of people tellin’ ya ‘You changed my life.’” The tragedy is that the message which has supposedly changed so many lives is a placebo. Osteen described the substance of his message as one which encourages people to “be positive in a negative situation and it will help you stay filled with hope.” Pitts pointed out to Osteen that there are many theologians who find his message dangerous, to which Osteen responded, “”I don’t know what can be so dangerous about giving people hope.”
Hope is dangerous when it’s a false hope. Keeping a positive mental attitude while my house burns down around me may give me hope, but the only thing that can save me is to get out of the burning house. Hope sustains, but it doesn’t save. Osteen points people to their hopes as their salvation rather than to Jesus Christ as the only one who can deliver us from our sins (“negative situations” in Osteen’s parlance). Genuine assurance in the midst of life’s tragedies and trials comes not from my believing in myself, but from believing in the One who raised Christ from the dead, knowing that I have been raised with Christ through faith in the powerful working of God, that God has cancelled the record of debt that stood against me by nailing it to the cross of His only Son (Colossians 2:8-15), making it impossible for anyone to bring a charge against me or to separate me from the love God has for me in Christ (Romans 8:31-39). In all of life’s negative situations I am more than conqueror, not because I have altered my state of consciousness through repeated positive confessions, but because God always causes me to triumph based on the completed work of His Son on my behalf.
Everything wrong with Osteen’s teaching and ministry stems from the way he views serious theology as optional. If all we knew about Joel Osteen is the casual way in which he approaches and handles the word of God, we would know enough to steer clear of his ministry, a ministry which purports to prepare people for their best life now yet can do nothing to prepare them for an eternity beyond this life because all Osteen knows is this life. He hasn’t taken the time to engage Scripture at a deep enough level to realize that “if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
Go BoSox! October 13, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in ALCS, Baseball, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland, Cleveland Indians.1 comment so far
What the Yankees couldn’t do to eliminate the Cleveland Indians it seems the Boston Red Sox are prepared to do. After routing the Indians in the first game of the ALCS, Boston’s David Ortiz may have secured a second game win by doing what no one expects him to do: beat out an infield grounder to break-up a sure double play which led to back to back homeruns: a two run homerun by Manny Ramirez and a solo homerun by Mike Lowell, giving Boston a 6-5 lead in the fifth. The homeruns wouldn’t have happened if David Ortiz wasn’t playing his heart out - injured.
I despise the Cleveland Indians after the way their fans treated my Tigers during their last series in Cleveland, but I love this game. I’ll love it even more after Cleveland is finally eliminated. Go BoSox!
Dr. Albert Mohler on Global Warming: “Something alarming is happening here” October 13, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Al Gore, Albert Mohler, Global Warming.4 comments
On his nationally syndicated radio program Friday, Dr. Albert Mohler discussed former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in global warming. Dr. Mohler placed his remarks in the following context:
The issue for me today, as I’m looking at this, is not so much about whether Al Gore deserves the Nobel Prize. That’s up to the Nobel Committee. It’s not even as to whether global warming fits the criterion for a peace prize. If the people giving it says it does, they’re the ones who get to decide. It’s what is global warming and, while all the world is talking about it, this is the place for intelligent Christian conversation, about how we figure out what global warming is, how we fit it within the Christian worldview, and how we move from the “So What?” to the “What Now?, the application question.
Dr. Mohler then went on to confess that his viewpoint on global warming is not the same as most evangelicals:
Just speaking honestly, I understand a lot of people (don’t buy into the theory of global warming at all). That’s not where I am. I think as I have tried to look honestly at the data I accept the fact that there is something to this; that there is a warming pattern.
But let me tell you the big questions I have about that. Number one, is this a natural kind of cyclical pattern? Is this the kind of thing that comes back again and again and again in terms of the history of the earth? We know that there have been different patterns, so that’s one question. The second question would be, are human beings causing this? That’s why we’re talking about this. If this were just some kind of natural occurrence the question would be, what do we do to try to mitigate its effects and all the rest, but if human beings are causing this, then that raises the whole question of responsibility, what can we do if we did it, can we undo it, etc.
And I’ll tell you where I am on those questions. On the first question having to do with whether this is just a natural pattern, it appears that it might be in part. It also appears that it is difficult to ascertain that simply because we don’t have the kind of meteorological data, the kind of weather data…there was no one back standing with Plato in ancient Greece holding a thermometer writing down the temperature every day in Fahrenheit or Celsius, and noting the weather so that we can track all this. We didn’t even have a knowledge in previous centuries of human history about the poles. The exploration of the poles is a fairly recent thing in terms of the lifetimes of people living right now. We don’t have the kind of data we would like to have on exact sea levels and all the rest. But, on the other hand, there is some data. We know where harbors are. That tells us something about sea levels. We have water levels marked on erosion patterns, and all the rest. So, the bottom line on the first question is, I think we know enough to know that something is happening here. Something unusual, and something alarming is happening here.
The second question, did human beings cause it? I’m going to be very honest with you, this is where I have had to change my thinking somewhat. This is where I have had to assume that it must be that humans have at least some contribution to this. How much? I don’t know. I am not posing as a scientist. I am not an environmentalist. I’m not a physicist. I’m not a meteorologist. But trying as my best to look at the data and to read the most credible people, it does appear that human beings are part of this.
Now, that doesn’t mean necessarily that we have to, or even could, reverse all of this. That’s a different question. One of the people that I most respect on this issue is the man who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, his new book is entitled Cool It. He’s Bjorn Lomborg. He is one who takes kind of a middle position here saying (paraphrasing), “I accept that there is such a thing as global warming. I accept that human beings are contributing to it, but let’s be real about what we could do to fix the problem and even whether we would be willing to do those things when we understood how it would change the way human beings live. “
To get to the bottom line here, we have become an energy dependent people. As much as all of us wish there was some absolutely free and environmentally neutral form of energy, the reality is most of us need it. Most of us want it. We want hospitals to have electricity. We want air conditioning. We need the automobile. It’s become a part of modern society. I don’t think very many people are going to be willing to part with it. The big question is, how do we adjust to this? How do we respond to this?
Listen to the entire program here.
Paula White’s Desperate Moment October 12, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Paula White.85 comments
Televangelist Paula White was a recent guest on my radio program in Detroit. She and her husband of 18 years, Randy White, announced in August that they would be divorcing and yet continuing their respective ministries: Randy as Senior Pastor of Church Without Walls in Tampa, Florida and Paula as an itinerant evangelist and “Life Coach.”
For most of the 30 minutes we talked I challenged her on her theology, as revealed in her latest book “You’re All That!,” as well as her divorce. I asked her to justify statements made by members of her church that her divorce would have no impact whatsoever on its ministry. How is that possible, I asked? How is it possible that two high profile ministers could conclude that their own relationship was so damaged that divorce was the only solution, and yet believe themselves spiritually fit to continue their ministries? She had no concrete answers, and so she concluded our 30 minute conversation this way:
“And while we’re talking about painful, difficult situations, with all due respect, I understand “let’s get the elephant out of the room,” we’ve taken 30 minutes on divorce. But I don’t understand why not an interviewer or a believer as yourself has not asked me how my daughter, who has a death sentence, with third and fourth stage cancer, how she’s doing now.”
I sat stunned for a moment; stunned because I didn’t know, but more shocked that she would use a family tragedy to make me look like a terrible person simply because I challenged her theology and lifestyle.
What pray tell, does her daughter’s illness have to do with answering questions about her divorce and her humanistic theology? Is Paula White above criticism because she has a terminally ill daughter?
The larger question is: if her daughter’s illness is so serious as to warrant her not having to answer questions about her very public divorce and her very abberant theology, why is Paula White on an eight city book tour while her daughter lay dying? During our conversation she boarded a plane for Detroit for a book signing the next day.
The fact is, “her” daughter is not her daughter at all. “Her” daughter is actually her estranged husband Randy’s daughter from a previous marriage. “Her” daughter is an adult, not a child. She led me and my audience to believe that she had a young child at home dying of cancer. Paula White played the sympathy card when it became apparent she had lost the sympathy of the audience on the issues she was asked to address.
Paula White is a well managed image worth millions of dollars. Behind that image is a real person, a wounded and broken human being, who lives in fear of being exposed. Paula White revealed how broken she is when she used her dying daughter as a desperate cover to protect at all costs her well managed image. She needs our prayers as much as her daughter.
Listen to the complete interview here.
Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does… October 8, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Beauty, Sex, Uncategorized.1 comment so far
[HT: Evangelical Outpost]
Too Sexy for Your Church? October 7, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Megachurch, Sex.3 comments
Click the link to watch a report from a local television station in Sevierville, TN about a local church there whose “Red Hot Sex” mailer may have had the opposite of the effect intended on some residents. Why can’t we just trust the Word to do its job rather than our creative marketing?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/06/tn.sexy.pamphlets.wate
Joe Carter on Conservatism’s Most Influential Media October 7, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Conservatism.1 comment so far
While hanging around at The Evangelical Outpost this afternoon I discovered this post from April 5, 2007 by Joe Carter:
What media has had the most influence on the conservative movement over the past forty years?
Various factions within conservatism will give widely differing responses. The old school intellectuals will have a short list that includes National Review, Bill Buckley’s “Firing Line”, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and George Will’s columns. The populist and paleocon wings will name Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Human Events, and CNN’s Crossfire (Pat Buchanan-era). The more gullible (or cynical) might list books by Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly.
But the truth is that the vast majority of conservatives have never read Chamber’s Witness or puzzled over what it means to “Immanentize the Eschaton.” They don’t subscribe to The Weekly Standard or The American Conservative. They didn’t read the book that Goldwater didn’t write (The Conscience of a Conservative) and never saw Buckley cuss out Gore Vidal on national TV.
So what media has influenced them the most? I offer three candidates for consideration: a book, a magazine, and a radio show. All three of which I believe have impacted American conservatism more than any other media.
Preaching to the Dead October 5, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Uncategorized.12 comments
Outreach Magazine is out with its list of the 100 Largest U.S. Churches for 2007. No such list appears anywhere in Scripture. While it certainly could be argued that numbers mattered to the New Testament church, as is indicated by their citation in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the broader point is that churches in the New Testament are nowhere ranked in terms of their numbers. The opposite in fact may be true, demonstrated by Paul’s reminder of the danger of “measuring ourselves by ourselves, and comparing ourselves among ourselves” (2 Corinthians 10:12). “Let him that boasts boast in the Lord.”
Can you imagine any of the inspired writers of the New Testament ranking the church at Ephesus above the church at Philippi, and Philippi above the church at Thessalonica based solely on how many people were showing up each week? Forgive my provincialism, but it would appear that the level of faith, hope and love at work in each of these assemblies was a much more significant indicator to the Apostles than the number of people present for a weekend service (see any of Paul’s epistles and Gene Getz’s work on this subject, The Measure of a Church
Accompanying this year’s list of America’s largest churches was a piece by Kem Meyer, the communications director at Granger Community Church in Granger, Indiana. Titled Top Ten Things You Should Know About Unchurched People If You Want Them to Hear What You are Saying, it included such insights as, “Talk about what makes life better for the guest,” and “People aren’t motivated by your need (the church’s need). They are motivated by theirs,” and “People relate when you talk about them or people like them.” In plainer words, the success of the church depends upon motivating unregenerate people to join your cause by enticing them with how satisfying and fulfilling it can be, in the same way ski lodges sell lift tickets. Could anything be further from a true presentation of the gospel?
Jesus said, “If any one would be my disciple he must first deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Motivating people by their own needs is like forcing a square peg into the round hole of Jesus’ call to abandon ourselves for His sake and the sake of the gospel.
Ms. Meyer also suggests that we have to be careful in our communication with the unchurched NOT to give the impression ”they aren’t OK where they’re at and they’re not as good as they should be.” Really? I thought the whole premise of the gospel was that I’m not OK and you’re not OK and that’s why we needed the gospel in the first place. So to reach the unchurched the best thing to do is to NOT tell them what God’s word says about their sinful condition, the plight they are in, and the wrath they are under - as Paul did in the first three chapters of Romans? What’s the point then? What is Jesus saving them from if not their sin?
The point at which I had to wrap my head with duct tape to keep it from exploding was when Ms. Meyer suggested, “People feel left out and frustrated when you use insider’s language,” and “People aren’t impressed with your theological vocabulary and holy dialect.” In other words, a sure fire way to guarantee no unchurched person will ever become churched is to quote scripture to them. After all, if Scripture isn’t “theological vocabulary” and “holy dialect,” what is?
And yet, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” ”It pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” “My speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” It is the word of God that convicts and converts.
There is a reason the unchurched aren’t impressed by our theological vocabulary and our holy dialect. It’s not because they don’t understand it. It’s because they can’t. Refusing to speak to them in biblical terms only makes the problem worse.
Scripture is clear that “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The unchurched are “dead in trespasses and in sins;” and ”the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbeliever to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel;” and ”the preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.” We proclaim a senseless message, to blind and deaf people, who have no desire to hear it, let alone respond to it because they can’t unless and until the spirit of God breaks into their heart through the word preached.
The church has been called to communicate a message that, short of a miracle of the Spirit of God, is incommunicable! Rather than shrink back from proclaiming this message based on the measure of results (or lack thereof), we must be much more bold to speak the word without fear and leave the opening of ears and hearts to the Author of the word.
It’s not our creative packaging of the message that causes an unchurched person to truly hear. It’s not our words, our Power Point presentations, the lighting in the room, or the professional signage throughout the building. It is the Spirit of God working through the word of God that produces a response from those who otherwise couldn’t care less about what we are saying. Ms. Meyer’s list betrays a total dependence on human ingenuity to accomplish only what can be accomplished by our total dependence on the Spirit of God. Getting a response out of the spiritually dead is improved only by doing that which today’s market-driven church leaders refuse to hear. “He who has ears, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15)
