Back to Blogging
First of all, I want to thank Matthew and George for guest blogging for me the last two days. Both their articles were AWESOME and have sparked a long discussion in the comments. Be sure to check them both out.
Yesterday we experienced RECORD traffic to this blog!!! Thanks to everyone who visited yesterday and feel free to come back again as we continue to bring good content.
Also, yesterday I replaced my header image here on the blog. It is meant to represent all the aspects of the topics we cover here at nathanrice.org. What do you guys think of it (especially you, Cory, since I know you do graphics stuff)?
Finally, I want to mention a few good reads I’ve come across on my two days off from blogging:
Steven Furtick had this good post on phrases we should ban from church
Cory had this awesome article on using the church to market products. Also, he was nice enough to give me some link love in this article. Thanks man!
This was funny, from Bill Dembski over at Uncommon Descent.
Also, Perry’s plan for 2007 gots me Jacked Up Too!
By the way, what’s up over at HealYourChurchWebsite? No new posts in weeks!? hmm….
Also, I noticed someone recommended my site as giving “balanced” opinions. Well, that’s what we try to do here. Thanks for the link!
Matthew Tilley has an interesting post on the Punk Preacher, Jay Bakker, son of Jim and Tammy-Faye.
OldTruth.com is now on my bad list. My brother told my about their anti-Perry Noble post during the Christmas break, and after reading some of the posts and comments, I’m blown away at their attitude (not in a good way). Some people think they’ve got it all figured out, and that’s what I’m trying to avoid on this site. We welcome anyone to challenge any of the articles on this site. We love it!!!
Finally, I just noticed that this site is the first (and second, sort of) result in google when you type “ccm sinful” as the search criteria!!! That is GOOD NEWS people!!! I hope more people discover our Music Series and finally put the old myths that CCM is wrong to bed!
That’s all for now…
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Nathan, I like the header image … I’d still suggest using some words to explain what you do here …
A good tagline can help first-time guests get settled in faster.
… just my two cents.
you’re absolutely right…
I added the tagline just now.
“Religion, Science, Life, Tech, Politics, and how they all work together.”
Thanks for plugging my Jay Bakker post. And thanks for the thought-provoking comment on my blog.
After reading your posts over on Old Truth (also a favorite of mine), I see that you and I may not completely agree on every detail of doctrine. But you certainly have one of the things that I’m begging God to give me and railing on standard church folks for not having: “grace.”
Yes, I mean the grace of Jesus Christ. But I don’t think (see Galations 3:3) that that grace is just grace that gets me to heaven … it’s grace that Romans 5:1-5 talks about giving us 1) faith (gets us saved), 2) hope (gives us something to look forward to and to relish in here on earth) and 3) love (the aspect of grace I’m saying you have … the ability to extend grace to those around you and reflect the love Christ that’s been shed abroad in your heart).
I appreciate that and find it something to pray more heartily for in my own life.
ps. can you tell I’m meditating hard on Romans 5 in preparation for an upcoming preaching opportunity?
Actually, that Nathan was a different Nathan, although I didn’t find myself disagreeing with him that often.
(I generally plug my blog, and that’s how you can know it’s actually me)
As far as the argument on the thread, it seemed to get a little to theological for my tastes, and I wasn’t fond of the attitudes expressed by the moderators of the blog and/or those who sided against Nathan. He seemed perfectly polite and cordial, and they treated him as if he were a substandard Christian because he didn’t subscribe to their particular theological conclusions (reformed theology, I presume). That was the main reason they are now on my bad list.
Also, I generally don’t like it when people say “the old way is the only good way” concerning methods for evangelism and Christianity in general. To me, it’s as bad as the KJV-onlyers…utterly void of any reason for the position other than tradition.
As far as your comments on grace, we could all use a good dose of the grace that equips us to love (like Christ loved). I desire more of it for myself as well.
Great comment! Thanks!
“Both their articles were AWESOME and have sparked a long discussion in the comments.”
Haha, unfortunately the discussions are mostly him disagreeing with my article and I disagreeing with his
Yes, by all means, stop by and “challenge” us, but please do more than Nathan did when he left his last comment on my blog, and tell us why you disagree based on scripture. For example: “You are wrong because this chapter and verse says…”. That always goes over better than “I just feel you are wrong because you don’t seem very nice to somebody that I like” or “You are wrong because you said something with the wrong attitude and didn’t show enough grace”. Those kinds of thing are so subjective, and I suppose we could say the same thing about Nathan’s “go get um challenge” here, as well as some of the comments above. Also, before you agree with Nathan that we “should not have everything figured out”, please be sure that whatever it is – CAN’T be figured out – from the bible, lest you argue in favor of deliberate ignorance. Lastly, the comment that I believe “the old way is the only good way” is unfounded. Please stop by and read my About page and perhaps you’ll see what I mean.
–Jim
http://www.OldTruth.com
Hey Jim, thanks for stopping by the blog. I take it you noticed a trackback on your blog, or perhaps Matthey T. pointed you here. Either way, it’s good to see you here!
I’d like to respond to some of your questions:
“Yes, by all means, stop by and ‘challenge’ us”
Perhaps I’m misreading this, so let me know if I am, but the quotes around the word challenge indicates sarcasm, as if valid challenges to your positions don’t actually exist. That’s one of the things about your site that I don’t particularly like. You treat “challenges” like so:
“you have made some statements about yourself that show a lack of Scriptural understanding and narcissism” (from the article I cited in this post).
To me, that’s not a subjective thing, that’s a plain old insult, any way you slice it. You essentially implied that Nathan was a narcissistic person with a lack of scriptural understanding, all because he had the audacity to say that he likes to be wowed in a church service (as he later pointed out, he wasn’t talking about with flashy videos or cool stories, but with good scriptural nuggets of truth). To me, that was a bit of a low blow.
“please be sure that whatever it is – CAN’T be figured out”
The Calvinistic position that we need not “try” (ie, put forth loads of effort) to get people saved because God elects, has been debated for centuries, yet you guys there seem to have it all figured out. I certainly am not foolish enough to engage in a debate over it, since I believe (as many theologians do) that the debate will always be fruitless.
“the comment that I believe “the old way is the only good way” is unfounded.”
Actually, a quick scan of your comments show that my assertion is readily supported by your own words. For instance:
“extra-biblical accounts of the early church record and there are no CGM methods employed” (if the early church didn’t do it, neither should we).
“I have provided you previously with some of the early church records…of how their services were performed” (again, we must do it the way these records show that the early church did it)
“Particularly there is no scriptural warrant for modifying the church worship service to accommodate “mythical seekers”.” (is there any scriptural warrant to do our church services differently than that of the early church?)
Seekers aren’t mythical. The strawman that you set up is indeed mythical (the idea that man seeks God without divine motivation). However, the concept that a man could be motivated by God to seek, is illustrated in my own life, as well as countless others. They exist, and churches should not only be prepared to handle them, but accommodate them in our churches. I certainly wouldn’t want to stand in front of God one day and have to answer for someone who was seeking God, yet I ignored them because I didn’t want to modify my service.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you and your positions. If so, please correct my erroneous opinions. I’m more than happy to recant publicly if I was in the wrong.
Again, thanks for stopping by! Good luck with the blog!
Nathan … sorry to have confused you with the other Nathan. I certainly don’t recant my position on you being a graceful guy!
Well, I appreciate that very much. The feeling is mutual.
Nathan:
First off, I apparently misread your last sentence in the paragraph about my blog to mean:
“We welcome anyone to challenge any of the articles on this [Old Truth] site.” But after reading it a couple of more times, I think you meant “this site” as in – your site. So that explains the “challenge” (in quotes) that I wrote (I was refering to your challenge of my blog). I assumed you were afraid to challenge things on Old Truth yourself, and wanted other people to do it for you.
Responding to Nathan (which ever one left the long comment above):
Ok, so let me get this straight, because I believe in election, that’s the primary reason why you feel “I have everything figured out”. You are prejudiced against the whole debate over election and predestination because of how long it’s been going on, and you have therefore declared it to be fruitless and you don’t feel that God wants you (or anyone else) to try to understand what’s involved or what’s at stake.
I, on the otherhand, am simply seeing things like this in the bible “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48), and “no one can come to the son unless the father draws him” and whoever is drawn is raised (saved) – John 6:37-45. And I run across this word “elect” and “election” everywhere in the new testament. So I’ve tried to figure out what all of that means, because the entire Word of God is important, after all; the Holy Spirit has inspired it. But now I come to find out from you, that I am foolish for trying to understand these things, or at least, I am foolish for saying that I believe scriptures like those. You don’t think that God wants you to deal with these passages, and it seems as though you have put up some imaginary yellow “police tape” around them, in which you tell the Holy Spirit “those are off limits”. Do I have that correct?
Also, who are these theologians that say these things are fruitless? Every dead theologian that I’ve ever read (and I’ve read all sorts of them), tries to understand these passages, and make an attempt at understanding them. Unless of course you mean that Perry is a theologian; I’ve seen him use that same Holy Spirit “police tape” around those passages numerous times. Personally, that makes me very afraid, to tell God that something in His Word is not important, and it would make me even more afraid to belittle someone who thinks that all scripture is important.
Next, you seem to be holding me accountable for all of the comments posted by other people on my blog, is that correct? Some of those things that you quote from my website are not even things I wrote, nor do I believe many of them. Again, why not read what *I* wrote on my About page, related to this topic? That’s where I spell out *my* view of the value of “old versus new”. What if I searched through this blog for the most outrageous comments that other people left here, people that you don’t even know, and then went back to my blog and wrote about those things as if they were Nathan’s views, without even mentioning that he didn’t write them. Wouldn’t that be dishonest?
Nathan said to me: “I certainly wouldn’t want to stand in front of God one day and have to answer for someone who was seeking God, yet I ignored them because I didn’t want to modify my service”.
Show me where in the bible where you find any instructions anywhere – that church gatherings are to be for evangelism? Or that they are supposed to be arranged around unbelievers?
I certainly would not want to be accountable to a Holy God for turning church worship into a psuedo rock concert where unbelievers somehow “worship God”, and where there are irreverent sermon themes calling our Savior “Wonderbread”, and where Jesus is sometimes refered to as “a dude”. I’ve seen all of that, at the churches that you seem to be fans of here.
Lastly, your depiction of my beliefs as “we need not ‘try’ (ie, put forth loads of effort)”, is false. Many of the greatest evangelists, missionaries, and martyrs of past centuries have had my beliefs. Your statement demonstrates that you really do not understand the beliefs of those you are (clearly) prejudiced against. And yet, you are somehow certain that they are not right.
“First off, I apparently misread your last sentence in the paragraph”
I’m sorry, I should have made that clearer. I apologize for the misunderstanding. No problem whatsoever.
“Ok, so let me get this straight, because I believe in election, that’s the primary reason why you feel “I have everything figured out”.”
No. The reason I said you acted like you have it all figured out, is because of the way people were treated who didn’t hold to your particular theology.
“You are prejudiced against the whole debate over election and predestination because of how long it’s been going on, and you have therefore declared it to be fruitless”
No. I’m not prejudiced against the debate at all, I just won’t participate in one. I also wasn’t calling the debate foolish, just that it would be foolish FOR ME to participate in it because it has been fruitless for me in the past (pretty much the same results every time). I continue to study the issue myself, but it’s been made clear to me that my participation in debates spawns bitterness and lacks results. Hence my decision and my statement. Obviously, I have opinions on the issue, but I’ve yet to see a definitive debate.
“But now I come to find out from you, that I am foolish for trying to understand these things, or at least, I am foolish for saying that I believe scriptures like those…Do I have that correct?”
As stated above, I also try to understand the issues as well, just not in debates, since I’ve found that avenue to be fruitless. If you prefer to debate the issue, by all means do so all you want, just don’t expect me to join you.
“Next, you seem to be holding me accountable for all of the comments posted by other people on my blog, is that correct?”
No, and I must make an apology here. I did indeed quote Scott O. For some reason, I thought all the yellow boxes were you. I was wrong. However, not only did you not disagree/condemn the phrases I quoted, you openly praised them. If you disagree with the statements I quoted, please let me know. I do not want to put words in your mouth. That is absolutely NOT my intent.
“Show me where in the bible where you find any instructions anywhere – that church gatherings are to be for evangelism? Or that they are supposed to be arranged around unbelievers?”
Its right next to the verse that instructs us to have pulpits, steeples, wear suits, have a song service with songbooks, and gives details on how to properly conduct a Sunday School, and give a salvation invitation at the end of the service….NOWHERE! Yet you have no problem with these programs.
“I certainly would not want to be accountable to a Holy God for turning church worship into a psuedo rock concert where unbelievers somehow “worship God””
As is evident in my Music Series, I have no problem with CCM. And, if you can find a single quote from Perry stating that he desires for unbelievers to worship God, then we’ll talk.
“and where there are irreverent sermon themes calling our Savior “Wonderbread””
Jesus called himself “the bread” of life. Is that also irreverent?
“and where Jesus is sometimes refered to as “a dude”.”
From wikipedia:
dude = “in recent years, the term has taken on a colloquial meaning at variance with that: it now means a male friend, comrade, or associate”
Jesus was described as a man, male, friend, etc. many times in the Bible. “Dude” has never implied irreverence to me. Jesus is a friend, and a Savior. It isn’t necessary to state both His roles every time He is referred to.
“Lastly, your depiction of my beliefs as “we need not ‘try’ (ie, put forth loads of effort)”, is false.”
If I was wrong in characterizing your beliefs, I apologize. Again, it’s not my intent to be deceptive to prove my points. However, it’s hard to reconcile some of your statements with your claim that you don’t think that “we need not try”, for instance:
“As Scott was saying, before the 1800′s revival was something that God did whenever He decided to, whereas in today’s revivalism – it’s something that man plans and does.”
Can you explain how you believe we are still supposed to try, yet it it’s all up to God? Also, can you explain where Perry claims that he and his staff do all the work, and God has no involvement? I see exactly the opposite from Perry’s blog:
“One of the things that we have discovered here at NewSpring is that the Holy Spirit is always at work…and NOT just on Sunday’s–but during sessions where ideas are brainstormed and well thought out.”
“Your statement demonstrates that you really do not understand the beliefs of those you are (clearly) prejudiced against.”
By all means, clear things up for me. I WANT to understand your position, I really do! I want to avoid misrepresenting you, so please set me strait. Once again, if I’ve done something wrong, I will happily apologize.
I’m done here Nathan. I’ve addressed your misrepresentation in this post on my blog:
http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.595
At the risk of wading into an argument that’s not mine, I wanted to make a quick comment about “trying.”
While I believe strongly in a supremely soverign God — in all respects, good and bad — I also believe strongly that we are to put forward effort, that we do, indeed, have a responsibility before God. However, the number one priority isn’t the work (the task, the try, the whatever), it is, instead, an intimate, real, close, personal and — most importantly — dependant relationship with that supremely Soverign God.
When that happens, you better believe we’ll be working. But I would be willing to guarantee that the “work” we’ll do with that kind of relationship in place will look very radically different from the “work” done without it.
Bottom line: God doesn’t need me … He wants to have a relationship with me, for me to love Him, to find my pleasure in Him. When I do that, I’m going to try … but not because I “have” to in order to be a “good Christian” .. but because the Holy Spirit is so in control of me I can’t help but do otherwise.
Matthew T.
I think you hit it square between the eyes. Attempts without God are not at all what we should be doing.
I think the point of contention was over the attitude like the one of Scott O over at OldTruth.com:
“The CGM assists these people in living a delusional existence, albeit a moral one, because to point out to them what the Gospel is, how they have to live and what they have to believe would cause them to leave.”
Jim’s post was much tamer (as were his comments, if you don’t count his statements of agreement with Scott O), than this statement, but the point was similar. The idea that Perry’s church’s primary goal was to bring in and convert, while ignoring the feeding of the born-again, is simply not substantiated by watching/listening/visiting his church. Yes, he absolutely plans his church services with the unsaved visitors in mind, but he does so without watering down the message, and without short-changing the born-again. I’ve never been disappointed by a message/service at NewSpring, even the occasional “evangelism only” services. They are a great balance of all the necessary functions of a church, including recognizing and speaking to those who do not know Christ (a reality that we cannot continue to ignore).
Thanks Matthew!
I really hope Jim and I can work this out. I truly have nothing against him. I’d love to write a post titled “OldTruth.com no longer on my bad list”
Nothing would make me happier.
Alright already!
I’m back in the game.
Some posts to get started, more to come.
(no rest for the weary !-)