Well, I learned something — day’s over.

A: A liberal thinks this is the best of all possible worlds; a conservative knows it is.

I thought I was the only person applying the 2nd Law to human institutions!

Based on your definition of your traditionalist/conservative views, I guess I can’t really say I’m less so than you are. But I must say that I also don’t have a problem cutting dead weight when something isn’t working anymore.

BTW — while perusing one of your links in your last post, I stumbled across some interesting reading (great find, Tom!):

http://www.founders.org/FJ09/article3.html
(Apologies; I’m not very conversant in HTML. I only know italics and boldface.)

And the original Founders article was as interesting to me for its content as it was for its implications. Probably a corollary, not a causal relationship — probably: the denominations who were quick to embrace dispensationalism then are now almost all in the business of either ordaining homosexuals and advocating gay marriage, or at best just winking and nodding at, and excusing, the lifestyle.

Just some food for thought.

I’d say more, but lunch is now over.

I nearly quit engineering over my first thermodynamics course- it’s a well-earned knowledge, not evidence of my intellect!

I do not oppose anyone’s attempts to evangelize if they are preaching a real Christianity, salvation by Christ’s blood by grace alone. I do have some concern about Warren on these issues, but many of his public statements (which are very questionable) are inconsistent with his website’s official explanation of his positions (which are generally doctrinally correct).

We also need to have realistic expectations about the salvation of some of these folks, as the “easy prayer” techniques are going to generate a large number of false positives.

What I object to is the idea that every church must become a seeker-friendly church and that those who oppose such a change are contrary to the will of God. I object to the authoritarianism (Warren and his disciples are notorious for gutting the bylaws of their churches to give the pastor complete autonomy), the secrecy and the intolerance of those with a different opinion. These are things that Warren’s people espouse through their behavior.

To conclude the seeker-friendly issue, I think there is a place for these kinds of churches. Maybe we’ve needed these kinds of churches for a while, as the culture continues to deconstruct, just like there was a market opportunity in the 1950’s for McDonald’s when the automobile became ubiquitous.

And, by the numbers, McDonald’s is the world’s most popular restaurant. However, it does not mean that McDonald’s has the best food (quite the contrary), or that every restaurant should be a McDonald’s, or that restaurants who aren’t McDonald’s or people who don’t eat at McDonald’s are inferior (quite the contrary). McDonald’s is inferior in every way except its broad appeal, but it is better than no food at all.

So while we should not oppose seeker-friendly churches, we should see them as a necessary stopgap to appeal to a declining culture, not an ideal to be emulated by all churches everywhere.

And to the extent that seeker-friendly churches acknowledge their role and their limitations (as it sounds like your former church did) and stay within proper doctrinal boundaries, I support them.

Tom

To quote you:
…recognizing the fragile nature of the good God has granted us in this world, conserving the good is more important than satiating our boredom, vanity or ambition with endless projects for change that usually foresake the good in pursuit of the perfect.
________
I do tend to agree with you here, but I have a question for you. What about the people who don’t know Jesus and will never respond to traditional methods of evangelizing? (I’m not talking about the message, rather the method of delivery).

Do you feel that it is wrong to use less traditional methods (not message) of the Gospel?

Change of direction…

In my opinion, the main problem (not only problem) with the contemporary mega-church is the lack of discipleship. The whole “say the prayer and get saved” thing is not enough. I think it was you who quoted statistics of people falling away from God under these circumstances.

I know that at Fellowship Church in Dallas (Ed Young, Jr.), the original intention was for it to be a seeker church. Once people were saved and got the basics, they would be assisted in finding a church home where they could grow spiritually. The church grew so fast, though, that it got out of control. So you have all these people who are going nowhere spiritually but are having a really good time. I was there through all of this and saw it all come apart (in my opinion).

Anyway…back to topic. I think there is definitely a line that must be crossed (and yet it constantly is), but I believe it is okay to deliver God’s message in whatever way He leads you as long as the true message is not watered down.

But MORE importantly, someone has to disciple these new believers, and I believe that this is where the mega-church (most) fails miserably. If I’m being truthful, I’d say that many churches today fail in this area.

We are a nation of believers who will not stand for God’s truth. We are the majority, and yet we whisper. We sound like the minority.

Someone has to tell these people the truth IMMEDIATELY upon them giving their life to Jesus. Because there’s more to it than a prayer and a smile.

My opinion…
______

By the way, I really like your blog, although I will admit to having to ask Jason what you are talking about sometimes. Thermodynamics? Whew. You are so far beyond me intellectually, but your thoughts interest me and really make me think. Keep blogging.

Your opinion is always welcome. Part of the purpose of this is to have other people be a bovine excrement detector for me.

I should state why I am a traditionalist and a conservative.

Traditionalism/conservatism in my opinion is a practical acknowledgment of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to human endeavors. The Second Law, as you know, states that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe is always increasing. It establishes a hierarchy of energy, of which potential energy is the highest, followed by mechanical energy, followed by heat. Energy at a lower level can only be moved to a higher level at a net cost. Whenever we cool our homes or run our cars, we are making little deposits in the ever-growing account of entropy/disorder, because nothing productive can happen energy-wise without a greater balancing waste of energy to useless heat.

I believe human institutions are the same way- the natural tendency is to disorder, disruption and destruction. So when we have something that works, whether a little church or a family or a large company, we should realize that the fact it works is contrary to the nature of humanity and thus something of value. Since the natural tendency of human institutions is downhill, when something is working, we should seek to conserve it. Thus the source of the word conservatism. It means that conservation of the all-too-rare good in this world should be first and foremost. And while change is inevitable, the burden of proof should be upon proposals for change to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is something wrong with the good it is seeking to displace, and that there is, beyond a reasonable doubt, reason to believe the change will result in an increase of good.

In much of the church and wider culture today, change is done for the mere sake of change. I have a saying in my business that I borrowed from a smart marketer- “Don’t get bored with what works.” I see all sorts of foolishness in the church, in businesses (even large corporations) and other institutions because some ambitious person gets a bug in his head to change things. Change is not good or bad- it is amoral. And recognizing the fragile nature of the good God has granted us in this world, conserving the good is more important than satiating our boredom, vanity or ambition with endless projects for change that usually foresake the good in pursuit of the perfect.

The part of that story that talks about the pastors following up with the new churches does have Scriptural backing, though… Remember when Jesus sent the Apostles out to spread the word? He told them that if anyone didn’t accept the Good News, or even questioned it, the apostles were to make sure all the new converts ostracized that individual and did their best to drive him out of town….

Wait… No… Maybe it was Paul, writing to Phillippi….

Islam is the only major religion I know of with a “convert or die” philosophy. (Well, I guess technically you could say that’s the ultimate message of the Gospel. The Way, not a way. But death doesn’t come from the hands of the person bringing the message) But Warren’s cult of personality seems to be getting a little out of hand. While conservative, I don’t think I’m as resistant to new approaches as you are, Tom. That having been said, I personally have never responded as intended (their intent) to bullies, and that’s exactly what this guy’s “ministry” has turned into.

Where does it end? If we’re not in lockstep, we’ve lost our salvation? (Forgive the hyperbole)

I really think we need to stop acting like shrinking violets in the interest of projecting love and acceptance while being run over roughshod by every new “progressive” fad. The expanding definition of acceptability you mentioned in your “O” post (or cOmments thereunto), coupled with the actions of these Warrenites (to coin a word), makes me feel a need to point out that the same Jesus who asked for the forgiveness of his Roman tormenters while on the cross also drove money changers and prostitues out of the temple with a scourge of cords.

My point is, while I think that most of the message Warren is sending out is good, or at least has good foundations, the implementation of it needs serious retooling. This is a massive miscarriage of church discipline. Paul exhorted us to first try to convict to repentance, then eject as a last resort, believers who were in a lifestyle of sin; the guys in the WSJ article are kicking people out at the first sign of trouble, then trying their best to make sure they never find a real “home” again.

Vin-dic-tive!

…if you’re interested in my opinion.