welcome to the story.

There is nothing like sitting around on a Saturday afternoon and watching Straight Talk with Dolly Parton on TBS. By the way, that is one of the more underated movies out there.

I think the defintion of spiritual maturity is found in Hebrews 5:14 when the author writes, "Solid food is for those who are mature, who have trained themselves to recgonize the difference between right and wrong and then do what is right." This verse says that maturity is when you not only know the difference between right and wrong (knowledge), but when you actually do what is right (wisdom). This passage in Hebrews, (Hebrews 5:11-6:12) was written because these Christians were still sitting around discussing the fundamentals of the faith (i.e. baptism, the ressurection, judgement). Amazingly the people who the author was addressing were still sitting around talking about how to baptize or what hell was like. They weren't "doing" but discussing simply and fundamental principles. We equate spiritual maturity with mastering the knowledge (the theology) of right and wrong. The author of Hebrews equates maturity and spiritual formation with doing what is right. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. And wisdom is where you'll find maturity. 2 Peter 3:18 tells us to "grow in our knowledge of the Lord." But what is knowledge meant for? Knowledge is always synomous with a relationship to God and interaction with to others. I'm sick and tired of hearing people who always talk about right doctrine and not also right living. I'm sick of hearing people say we need to teach the world the "knowledge of the Word" and then not also discuss what the "knowledge of the Word" leads to. At some point we have to connect the two. Knowledge is always for a dynamic relationship with God and action towards others. Just my thoughts on the discussing of "mature Christians" and "knowledge".

Thoughts on Romans 7:15-25 Who we are now is shaping who we are becoming. That is to say, what we are doing in the present is determining who we will become in the future. We live in a divided state. On one hand we are who we are now. On the other hand we desire to be something that we are not yet. This represents the values and characteristics that we want to represent in the future. So the tension is to bridge these two divided selfs; who we are now and who we want to be in the future. The problem is that we live in a world that pushes us to become something other than what we desire to be. We live in an accomplishment based world that does not care about the character or values that we all intrisinctly desire. In this world we're constantly dragged towards these achievements. They determine our success. Our bosses care more about our performance than they do our family life. You'll never hear your boss come up to you and say, "You know what, you suck as an employee, but you're a great father and husband." It just doesn't happen that way. Schools care more about our grades than they do our personality. You'll never hear Harvard call someone and say, "You made a 800 on your SAT, but you know what? You have a great personality and your friend said you were loyal and trustworthy." It once again just doesn't happen that way. No one grows up though and says they want to be crappy husband or a poor mother. It just happens. No one grows up and says they want to cheat on their taxes. It just happens. Because the character decisions that we are making now, determing the character that we will have in the future. So there are huge gaps in who we are and what we want to become. The difficulty is finding a way to bridge these two divided selfs. Thats where spiritual formation comes in.

I've really been doing alot of reading and thinking on the topic of spiritual formation lately. I've been doing some writing on the subject over the last couple of days and I'll be posting some of those thoughts over the next few days. I've been noticing this really sick trend in my online class at Luther Rice. Whenever we're discussing a topic, it seems like the topic always reverts toward the "world's" relation to the topic. For example, when we were discussing Christ's preeminence in our life, the conversation drifted to why the "world" wasn't putting Christ first. Or on our recent topic discussing counterfeit spirituality, the conversation by everyone in the class was on the New Age movement and the counterfeit spirituality that existed in that movement. All of these conversations progressed to a blaming of other people, and in specific "the world". But for some reason I find this extremely disturbing. I don't understand why we are always running other people and groups through this "righteous" grid when these people and groups are only naturally doing what they do. They are of the world so they will think and act like the world. And maybe I'm just weird or a bad Christian, but for some reason, that does not bother me that much. Because they are only doing what is natural to them. What bothers me more than the counterfeit spirituality of the New Age movement, is the counterfeit spirituality in the church and in our lives. And I get the feeling that most Christians are running the world through this grid and not themselves or the church. I get this picture of them sitting there and when a verse or topic is discussed saying: "AHA! We got them on another one! They're wrong again! Look at them! They need Jesus!" Maybe I'm wrong in this assessment, but from the conversations I've had this semester in class, no one seems to think of themselves first or the church first. Maybe I'm the only one who sees this or feels this and maybe I'm the one who is wrong. Who knows? I think one of the signs that spiritual maturity or spiritual formation is taking place in our lives is when we look inward before we look outward. That is to say when we read a verse or hear something, we think first of how it applies to us before we think of someone else who needs to hear it. And after we examine ourselves, we then apply it to the local church (visible church) and universal church (the invisible church made up of individuals). The world and the lost should be the last group to run through the grid in my opinion. I could be wrong though. I'm really not sure. I'm just going on what I'm thinking. We're so ingrown though. We hear a verse or something and immediately we turn outward to the world before we turn inward to ourselves and the church. I think this is a sign of spiritual immaturity. But then again, by me writing this very email and looking outward at the others who are doing this, I'm doing the very same thing that I'm writing about. So it comes full circle. It's not "Aha! We tripped us another one!" But . . . "Crap! I'm a screw up and our churches are messed up." At least thats what I say or want to say. I think we need to look at our own lives and the state of our churches before we start expecting the world to listen. I'm not implying that the world doesn't need to change. I just think we better have some integrity in what we expect of them. If we think counterfeit spirituality is wrong of the New Age movement, then it needs to be wrong for us to practice it in our churches and in our own lives. I'm sick and tired of listening to people rail against the world and why they are wrong when their lives and churches are poor examples of right. But like I said, I could be wrong.

There's a big piece of you in everything that's me.

The presence of the Spirit will, I think, mainly be known as we act on the biblical texts. - Lachian We, modern Evangelicals, tend to think that meaning is intrinsic in the text. We treat the text as a deposit of residual facts that refer to something in the past. Our goal as interpreters is to uncover that meaning and then transport it to the future. If language does more than refer, then we must try to see what a text is doing, not merely saying. We tend to read the texts with thousands of layers of theology. - Scoatch

Jerry Coleman writes on the topic of Verbal and Lifestyle Proclamation of Christ in my online Spiritual Formation class. I'm starting with this specific selection, but there has been a couple of weeks worth of posts before this post and my responses. Jerry Coleman writes: Come on ........ To say that lifstyle evangelism fulfilles the great commision is a cop out. Just my opionion, but not without reason. I say that being very guilty, because I use to say this myself, to avoid conflict, and to avoid facing my fears. Jesus showed us the way.....3 ways not 1. lifestyle 2.discipleship/relationship 3.verbal evangelism..........we need to do all 3 Of the 3, rank the 3 in order of importance or productivity. When was the last time you had some one come up to you and say, Eli, I see that you have what I want, how can I get saved too. Now it this happenes to you all the time, then by all means continue on ..... How will this apply to witnessing to a total stranger? Or are we to exclude strangers? Jesus did not exclude strangers. Should we? How can we disciple or do relationship evangelism without verbaly communicating at least my own personal testamony? It says to "Teach" it does not say to show. When I look at the great commision, and then at the church as a whole.....its a sad day......and if lifestyle evangelism were the only eveangelism the church today was showing, then my friend we would have a dead church in one generation. I am not saying that lifestyle evangelism is not important, It is. But the 3 fold areas are important together, and to say you are fulfilling the commision with 1 or even 2, is a mistake. We need more people willing to do all three......and I say this kowing that this is a command not a request ....T he main thing I want to make very plain here, is that most people think that JUST lifestyle evangelism is all they need to do.....And I say HOGWASH.......... My response is broken up into 3 different posts. Post 1: I don't think Eli has ever said that "JUST lifestyle evangelism is all they need to do." I haven't seen that in these posts. And I hope that you're not implying by ranking your 3 views of evangelism, that one is more important than the other. Because you keep saying that they are one and the same only to make the comment that we should "rank the 3 in order of importance or productivity." To me, when you make that statement, you disqualify you other statement of "But the 3 fold areas are important together". Maybe I'm just misinterpretating your comments, but it seems as if you're switching back and forth by saying that one is more important than the other and that they are not more important than each other, but are to be taken together. I only see 1 type of evangelism (with 2 different methods - lifestyle and verbal. i see relationship/discipleship as fitting into lifestyle). But if I were to break it down into 3 categories and I was going to give them a rank as you asked us to do. I'm not sure that verbal would be number one. You asked Eli, "When was the last time you had some one come up to you and say, Eli, I see that you have what I want, how can I get saved too?" That question should be asked to all of us. And the answer is that sadly many people don't come to us like this. Now that shouldn't mean we should VERBALIZE all the more. Maybe it should make us wonder why our lives aren't the salt and light that they should be. If people don't come asking us whats different about us, that doesn't mean that we should say "verbal evangelism" is more important. It should mean that our "lifestyle evangelism" stinks. So when nobody comes up to us, as I'm sure it is the case for the majority of us, that doesn't mean we scream the gospel louder. I would think that it would make us reexamine our lifestyle. Because when you look at Christ's lifestyle, a lot of the time, he would not initate the "verbal". Instead, people would come up to him wondering and begging "what made him different". He then responded to their questions, their engagements, their hunger for what He possessed. They were also many times that He did initiate the crowds verbally. But there were many times that His life was so obvious that the crowd initiated the engagment. I think we are treading on dangerous ground when we start asking people to RANK the best style of evangelism. Because I could easily make the arguement that the reason why people aren't coming to Christ today is not because of the verbal. In fact the verbal proclamation of Christ today may be higher than it ever has been with the tools that media have to offer. The gospel is practically proclaimed from the radio, tv, and internet 24/7. So if people aren't coming to Christ through all of this massive, packaged, commercialized verbal proclamation, then maybe our "lifestyle evangelism" is what is weak. Maybe if we would quit being bigoted, close-minded, arrogant, rude, salesmen of the gospel, and start practicing what we preach, then maybe people would be drawn to this gospel that we have obviously mastered the verbal proclamation of. Post 2: "if lifestyle evangelism were the only eveangelism the church today was showing, then my friend we would have a dead church in one generation." I hate to break it to you. But I think we may already have a dead church. And I think it is because of all the "preaching" from the Christians and not enough "living" from the Christians. Post 3: "How will this apply to witnessing to a total stranger? Or are we to exclude strangers? Jesus did not exclude strangers. Should we?" So we include strangers by being verbal with them? Or do we include them in our life? I would think it would be much more effective if we included them in our life than if we just "preached" at them? Its both/and. Look at the life of Jesus. How did He include the strangers? He didn't just preach at them. He said come follow me. Take on my lifestyle. Come eat with me. Lets feast together. Lets do life together. Lets minister together. Lets be together. Yes he verbalized with them. But his platform was his lifestyle. He didn't have one without the other. There are very very very few instances in the four gospels where you see Jesus walking up to someone and just start verbalizing. Instead, he engages them in relationship, then he begins proclaiming his kingdom. But there were many many many instances where he first began with his living, engaging, involving those around Him in his life. Then He verbally proclaimed. Let me ask you this. In a perfect world, what is the best scenario for evangelism? 1) Would it work better if we were building relationships with people, hanging out with them, eating dinner with them, going to the movies with them, entering into their world and leaving ours, and building a bridge of friendship from Christ to US to THEM, then proclaiming the gospel? 2) OR would it be better to hang out with Christians everyday, shop from Christians, live in Christianville everyday, and then whenever we have a waitress for 45 minutes, or a clerk at the store, or a family sitting down to eat dinner on Tuesday night during our Visitation, and not have any type of lasting relationship, honest, caring, deep relationship with these people, to just verbally proclaim? The first one would obviously work better. But because Christ has CALLED us to do both. Because there are obvious times that the Spirit of God prompts us to share with our waitress or our sales clerk, we are to do both. But we would rather just do the second type and not to do the first. Because alot of us fear if we start involving our lives on an intimate level with the "lost" that we might get dirty, contaminated, messy. So we'd rather stay at an arms distance from a real relationship with the lost and whine and complain that they're not listening to our deafening screams of the proclamation of the gospel. Maybe we should all shut up for a year, turn off every Christian radio preacher, every tv evangelist, close down every pulpit, turn off all of the Christian printing presses, and simply show one tangible expression of God's love to the world. We might actually be better if would simply shut up for a while and start living our sacred "advice to the lost".

This my response to the topic of Counterfeit Spirituality in my online Spiritual Formation class. Colossians 2:23 says, "These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." (NASB) There is definitely counterfeit spirituality out there. This can be seen from the New Age movements, to the philosophies of the day (such as Oprah), to even practices within the church. Spritiuality (and in specific spiritual formation) involves the whole person. Beginning on the inside and then moving to the outside. The problem with the New Age spirituality and the spirituality of Oprah is that it touches the inside, albeit, this is not done by the Holy Spirit. These people who are "seemingly spiritual" in the eyes of the world are hungry for transcendence, mystery, and a spiritual experience. Consequently, these "spiritual experiences" never align up with the Word of God. As Paul told the "spiritual" people in Athens in Acts 17:22, "I see that in every way you are very religious." Like those in Athens, the "spiritual" people of our day are looking for inward experiences. These experiences are simply "inward experiences" that are wholly humanistic and hedonistic at their nature. To follow this way is "to attempt to achieve righteousness some way other than God's way." (Vines, p. 161) This is the extreme end of counterfeit spirituality on the New Age side. On the other hand we have the counterfeit spirituality that is in the church. This spirituality is on a certain level, the same as the Gnostics that Paul is referring to in Colossians 2:23. These "self-made religious" people were focusing on the outward without a thought to the inward. Whereas, the New Age looks for an "inward experience" without any regards to the outward actions, the Gnostics that Paul is discussing here were totally focused on the outside. Discipling their bodies without regard to the discipling of the soul. Making noise and being seen. I really like how The Message puts this verse, "Such things sound impressive if said in a deep enough voice. They even give the illusion of being pious and humble and ascetic. But they're just another way of showing off, making yourselves look important." This type of counterfeit spirituality that is entirely focused on the outward is just as dangerous as the New Age counterfeit spirituality that is entirely focused on the inward. Both have perverted and abused the holistic spirituality that begins inwardly and ends outwardly. This is the type of counterfeit spirituality prevalent in our churches today. People (some well-intentioned and some not so well-intentioned) who are so focused on the outside and behavior modification and being seen and being heard. This is all done without it "beginning in the heart" as Mark 7:15, 20-23 says. When you read verse 15 of Marks 7, you would think that "you are defiled by what you say and do!" (NLT) But when you read verses 20-23 and in specific verse 23 you see that all of these things come from the heart. As The Message says, "There is the source of your polution." It is the outward acts that defile you, but these outward acts are rooted in the heart. So what seems like an obvious contradiction is in reality a beautiful paradox.

The modern Protestant church is so scared of anything that has a hint of "Catholic" in it. In many respects, SOME of the sacraments that the Catholic still practice, were a vital part of the early church. Sadly, after the Reformation, we don't touch these sacraments with a 10 foot pole. And in the process we rob ourselves of the mystery, symbolism, and spirituality of these practices. The only sacrament that the modern, Protestant church holds as biblical, is the sacrament of "the preaching of the Word of God." Since I've been reading Dallas Willard lately, I'll quote from him again. "We came to think that, in the language of some Protestants, "the Word of God is the only sacrament." And what that meant practically was that the sole means of spiritual growth was being taught and "preached at" - that we're saved and transformed by hearing the truths of the scriptures, we're redeemed by the truths which the conservative and evangelical segments of the church rightly stood for. We're saved by believing them, we're sanctified by believing them, and all issues of spiritual growth are dealt with simply by taking the word in through reading it, through hearing it, through exhortation and ministry from the scriptures. Or so we've thought . . . it certainly involves the ministry of the Word, certainly involves worship. We're pretty good with these practices, but the ones that look more "Catholic", like solitude, silence, and so on, we're not so good with those. And usually, I find, they deal with the areas where our deepest problem lies."

Said in a Bush-like voice: "Was has commenced."

One way that pastors/teachers/communicators can better connect with the younger generations is through the language that they use. My generation and younger, we think in images. If you say a word, a picture that corresponds with that word automatically reveals itself in my mind. Because we have grown up in the media age of television, movie, and internet, we think in images. But because we think in images, we think in ways that are less concrete. We think more abstractly. We think more in terms of narrative, in story form. We think in grey areas. On the other hand, my parents generation, they think more in words. In black and white, concrete, systematic terms. So for the pastors of my parent's generation who stand in a pulpit and use their words and language to deliver solid, concrete, black and white "points" in a systematic way, that just does not connect well with my generation. What I connect to and relate to better is when the communicator uses his words and language to paint a picture. The more descriptive the words are, the more I connect. The words that these emerging communicators use are almost like paint brushes that paint a image in our minds. The more poetic it is, the better we relate. The less the message is systematic, the better. The more the message is narrative and involves us in the story, the better. The less the words are dry, almost hollow, the better. The more the words pop off the mouth of the speaker with vitality, the better. The more the imagination is encouraged and let loose, the better. The future communicators must paint pictures with their words. We can not just see words as a form of delivering a concrete principle. But instead see words as tools that involve the listener in the journey of the ongoing story that encompasses whatever principle they are trying to convey. In the midst of communicating, create sacred spaces where your words captivate the imagination and lead it on journey towards God.

Another classic line from the profound thinker, Sharon Barbour of Seattle. "It's such a beautiful day. I'm in love with spring. And i'm glad that it's making it's way here. March is a wishy washy time here however, it's a mix of sunny days and rainy days. I'm ready for april and may and june and july and august and september and october and hmmnn i could do without november . .and december and the beginning of january. Those are my favorite times."

Here's a nice little insight from one of my friends at the Emergent Village. Scoatch wrote, "Perhaps we should rethink the definition of theology. When we think of theology as the study of God it places us within a scientific paradigm that for many is problematic." Yes, theology is not purely theoretical reflection on God which reaches timeless absolutes. Theology is not a science and Scripture in not an encyclopedia of propositions. Theology is not a timeless statement, but a timeful interpretation. What if we think of theology as discourse about God. I like this b/c it acknowledges that there is a conversation taking place (implicitly between persons). and alot more could be said about these persons, for we shouldn't just ask "what is theology", as if it really were something (a noun), but "WHO theologized (a verb), why that person theologizes, and with what resource (nature, scripture, human experience)?" or "How has God the person(s) spoken and do people respond?" So, my definition of theology is that it is "dramatic" in nature. Many times we talk about the "story" or "narrative" of God, which is great. but drama really is a better term b/c we are not just reading a story from a book, but are actors/actresse in the drama of redemption, and God is the principle Actor (and director- but that gets us into the whole sovreignty thing). The product of theology is not to say right (True) things about God, but is rather a type of "script" so that we can act rightly (wisely). I like this because it does not separate theology from ethics, as if once our theoretical work is done, only then can we be practical. Wisdom is the goal, not knowledge. I don't want to master God thru theology, but to live in wisdom.

Lyrics from Evanescence's song Taking Over Me. i believe in you i'll give up everything just to find you i have to be with you to live to breathe you're taking over me i look in the mirror and see your face if i look deep enough so many things inside that are just like you are taking over

We are so easy to say that our world and our communities have rejected the gospel. When we share with someone and we extend to them the gospel, and they do not accept it, we quickly say, "They rejected. God gave them an opportunity to hear and they chose not to follow." But what if the gospel that the world is hearing is not that of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What if the gospel that the world has been hearing is the gospel of religion, the gospel of church, the gospel of rules, the gospel of condemnation, the gospel of First Baptist so and so, the gospel of man? What if all of these people who have supposedly rejected the gospel have never really heard the true gospel? What if the gospel that they have rejected is only the religious-pseudo gospel of American Christian culture? Have they really rejected Jesus? Have they really turned a deaf ear to the call of the gospel? Or have they merely turned a deaf ear to the pseudo gospel we've been presenting? The problem with those who are disconnected from Christ is that most of them have never really heard the true gospel. Sure they've heard a form of the gospel that is the church's version, but they've never really heard the gospel of Jesus. Most of these people simply haven't heard. They think they have. Thats why they are turned off to God because the gospel they have heard makes God look like something other than He is. So whose to blame? The ones who have heard the wrong gospel? Or the ones who have preached the wrong gospel?

Oh the beauty and stupidity of innocence.

What I'm Reading This Week: Leviticus, Emerging Church by Dan Kimball What I'm Listening To This Week: Ka'au Crater Boys, Jimmy Buffett, Ben Harper, Jack Johnson, Kid Koala

Once again here is another great article from Pastor Mark Driscoll out of Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle (www.marshillchurch.org). The following is a portion of an email conversation I had in March of 2003 with a young Christian woman who is a doctor. She loves God and was perplexed by some of the people who were Postmodern Christians that came into her clinic for medical and spiritual help. She has kindly permitted me to share portions of this conversation with you because such questions are tremendously common for pastors working in the emerging church with people from the emerging culture and we both hoped it may be of help to you. Questions from the Female Doctor: These are real questions that I seek answers for because of my interactions with postmoderns every day. (The first part to it is whether you�ve seen any marriages between a Christian post-modern and a theist be happy/successful and God-centered?�So my 2nd question is how a believer should handle a relationship of any type with a believer who doesn�t feel being involved in a church or small group is important or a relationship with a believer who is strongly post-modern in order to influence them to see that God�s word is more important than their experience?) I understand that it may take too much paper or typing to be able to answer these well. In my perspective, postmodern thinking has to be dramatically transformed to be Christian thinking. To get to the point: I have not seen the question of Christian couples with different worldviews addressed in any book, seminar, or Christian resource, but I have started to see couples with differing worldviews in the clinic, and it seems that it is very difficult for a person�s basic worldview to be changed. In the clinic, I am often in the position of offering counsel and guidance to couples when one or more has a postmodern viewpoint. I also have not seen comprehensive answers to the question of Christians who consider themselves gay or lesbian, but have held in the past to the perspective you offered. As a follow-up question, have you also broken fellowship with a believer living with their boyfriend or girlfriend (another common scenario unfortunately)? My Answers: When we started MH I got thrown onto the main stage at a pastors conference and my talk on postmodernism went nuts thrusting me into a national platform. As I started to speak and travel I realized that my view of postmodernism was very different than most people. Many Christians simply thought that postmoderns were a new kind of Christian. But, I believe postmoderns are simply not Christians. Anytime you have a hyphenated Christianity (i.e. New Age Christian, liberal Christian, etc.) then you have negated the Christianity. For postmoderns the issue is one of authority/power as they see all leaders and all texts as means by which someone exercises authority/power over another. They see all authority and power as inherently bad and prefer experience over truth, relativism over absolutes, and tolerance over judgment to varying extremes. The result is that they will reject any singular interpretation of Scripture arguing that it is your perspective and that there are other perspectives and none are true so we should be tolerant of all. They will reject any leadership and shun away from what they call �organized religion� and prefer to have their �personal relationship and experiences with God�. They will also shun being in any form of officially responsible leadership which makes them bad parents and spouses and church members. This is because we are dealing with common sins that have simply now been given a philosophical name: 1. Like Adam and Eve in the garden we want to be God and decide right and wrong and play with what God says rather than obey it. 2. Like Romans 1:18 they suppress the truth they don�t like because they want to sin and live their life as they please so it is never a philosophical hang up but a hard heart that is truly the issue. 3. They think being spiritual is good enough, but James says even demons believe in God so being spiritual is never enough . 4. They will use the name Jesus, like cults do, which is confusing, but it�s a different gospel and different Jesus ala 2 Corinthians 11:4. The bottom line is that such people are idolaters worshipping their experience who are very selfish and don�t care about building up the body of Christ, or living to glorify God and obey the Scriptures. Instead, they use God and His people to play with the truth and live as they please. I, like you in your clinic, see it thousands of times a year. And, such people are truly blind to their condition and I believe their Enemy is often involved in perpetuating their blindness. It�s sad and very very frustrating. I have had many people leave the church because they simply say that they see what the Bible says and don�t like it and feel that if they love �Jesus� that�s enough and I have no right to tell them what to do � and this includes such obvious things as committing adultery that a true Christian would see as obviously biblical. How we define a Christian is very important in this discussion. I John 5:13 tells us that little book was written to help us know if we are a Christian and the book lays out three categories of change that happen if you are a Christian: 1. You see Jesus as God in authority over you and you love and obey Him with your whole heart. 2. You see Christians as your brothers and sisters and love to be in community as the church with them and pursue this vigorously. 3. You see sin as your enemy and hate your pride, folly, apathy and rebellion like you never have and deeply want to change by grace. I�m assuming you have seen these three changes in your life as you were saved, as I have, as have all of God�s people. If someone does not have these three categories then I doubt their salvation. As Jesus said, many will call Him Lord who truly never knew Him. As John says many who don�t possess salvation run from the light of Scripture, accountability, and repentance because they have evil deeds. I promise you, people who do such things aren�t just postmoderns, they are sinners running from God and postmodernity is what they call their excuses, blaming, and justifications. So, can this sort of postmodern Christian be happily married to a biblical Christian? No way. I have done premarital counseling for over 100 couples and unless the postmodern becomes a biblical Christian they do not have the same assumptions about Scripture, Jesus, life, church, sin, or much of anything else even though they may agree on a few things or use some of the same theological words. In I Corinthians 1:18-2:5 Paul mocks the �wise� philosophers of his day and postmodernity is just another philosophy on the heap of history that does not glorify God but is filled with pretension. Postmodernity is tough to comprehend, though, because it changes hermeneutics/interpretation but keeps the Bible. This is much like the cults, or how Satan used God�s Word to tempt Eve and Jesus. The only hope is that God opens a person�s eyes because they are spiritually blind and gives them a new heart because the old one is like bullets off a rock when it comes to the truth. You know this is happening when you see profound repentance and subsequent life change. Until then, it�s all playing with God. I have argued with thousands of these people and pastors to get nowhere. Eventually, they end up being basically New Age spiritists with some limp wrested Sky Fairy for a god/goddess, or committing some terrible sin that shows they have no fear of God. The only hope is that they are truly saved. On your other question, there is a movement of quasi-evangelical homosexuals lead by a guy who claims to hold to the authority of Scripture and all sound Christian doctrines. Again, the issue here is never academic but the heart. People have a moral problem FIRST and then they have subsequent theological problems. Simply, if you want to sin you will come up with any decent sounding philosophical argument to back you up. Basically, right thinking is thinking God�s thoughts after him. And, if we do that we stick close to Scripture and repent when our thinking strays. Others who want to be their own god (whether or not they admit it) begin thinking their own thoughts which is rebellion. As Christians, we don�t want to be innovative, just faithful. And, we don�t want a new idea, just to follow God�s wisdom. This requires repentance and not genius, and that requires humility and not pride. And there is the issue � it�s always pride from a hard heart. On your last question, if someone claims faith in Jesus and persists in any kind of habitual unrepentant sin that they don't want to fight or end then I do eventually break fellowship with them (this includes being gay, fornication, etc.) because I don't like wasting my time, and I don't think it is right that they enjoy Christian fellowship while sinning and ignoring my God they claim to worship but do not. If it's a non-Christian I expect no obedience to God and can hang with them no matter what they do providing I don't get sucked into their sin.

I got Ben Harper's new cd today, Diamonds On The Inside. Here are the words to one of the songs, Amen Omen. What started as a whisper Slowly turned into a scream Searching for an answer Where the question is unseen I don't know where you came from And I don't know where you've gone Old friends become old strangers Between the darkness and the dawn Will I see your face again? I still hear you saying All of life is a chance And is sweetest When at a glance But I live a hundred Lifetimes in a day But I die a little In every breath that I take Will I see your face again? I listen to a whisper Slowly drift away Silence is the loudest Parting word you never say I put your world Into my veins Now a voiceless sympathy Is all that remains Will I see your face again?

The gospel is the embodiment of grace in a lifestyle and the proclamation of truth in words. John 1:14

What I'm Reading This Week: Leviticus What I'm Listening To This Week: Coldplay, Ben Harper, The Strokes, Jars of Clay, Evanescence, Norah Jones Pez Dispenser Of The Week: Gonzo

I'm more afraid of living, Than I am to die. I'm more afraid of falling, Than I am of flying high. - Ben Harper