Walking the line

It is so hard to walk a line that leads down the middle of the road. Walton Padelford says, "The only thing you find in the middle of the road is a dead skunk with yellow paint across its back."

IOI was recently refused an audience with a missions committee because we are "too inclusive" and therefore not "orthodox". The funny thing is that in this democratic church I was never allowed to speak to the committee, nor was I ever asked one question. The conclusion was based solely on the fact that we work with so many denominations in Ethiopia, and our support comes from so many different churches in the USA.

The fact is IOI is an orthodox Christian missionary organization. As far as our Statement of Faith we site the Apostle’s and Nicene Creed, and believe the Bible to be inspired of God without error in the original manuscripts. Furthermore the ministers supported through IOI should preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ clearly as explained in scriptures such as I Corinthians 15:1-6 and be expecting the physical bodily return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is about as orthodox a statement as one could possibly make.

The real issue it seems is not theology rather it is methodology. We are not charismatic enough for the Charismatic, we are too inclusive for the Cessationists. It is not the issue of revelation that is a problem (IOI holds to the classical Protestant view that there is no "new" revelation about God - Sola Scriptura, while at the same time giving honor to tradition when it complies with Scripture), rather it is speaking in tongues that plagues us as the unity breaker.

To be honest, most of what I see that is called a "work of God" seems to be nothing more than flesh on parade. Yet, I cannot deny that God still does miracles and there are many gifts that God gives. Scripture is clear that we are not to forbid speaking in tongues, furthermore Scripture is clear in how tongues are (or not) to be used publicly. We teach Biblical exercise of all the gifts to the glory of God and the edification of the Church. If the Church is not edified then cease.

Rather than promotion of a denominational flavor IOI is committed to the teaching of sound doctrine and sound methodology according to Scripture. It may not be possible to walk this line, but our law is the Law of Love. We see our brothers and sisters in need and we are striving to have compassion them. We seek to aid them financially and practically, as well as theologically and methodologically.

May God grant us His grace as we seek to fulfill this labor of love in unity of the Holy Spirit.

Dependency

I have copied the article in its entirety and only added a few comments which are in red. I wanted to include the entire article to be fair.

DEPENDENCY ISSUES AND EXTENDING GOD’S KINGDOM
South America Region, International Mission Board, SBC

The concept of dependence is an important and vital part of the Christian life. We are taught in Scripture to be completely and totally dependent on God. Therefore, to foster a dependence on other things, even as they relate to Kingdom Extension, runs contrary to good missiological approaches and sound Scriptural principles. (Strange, no mention of the Church being like a body, which would imply interdependence on each other).

We are called, committed and accountable to go and to make disciples of the nations, even to the uttermost ends of the earth. Thankfully, many Southern Baptists and others have been and continue to be involved in that Kingdom task. The purpose of this position paper is to help avoid practices that are paternalistic (Application of the ideas that follow are not only "paternalistic" they are supremest, ie. "because we are greater...") and those that create dependency because such practices hinder Kingdom growth.

Some Relevant Scripture
We Baptists hold a strong belief that every individual is directly accountable to Almighty God to obey, worship and serve Him and that the Lord directs and empowers each individual to accomplish that which He has purposed. His church leadership is instructed "to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:12&13) (I think it strange to divorce the individual from the "body of Christ," and apply a scripture that clearly is addressing "you all" and interpret the passage to be to the individual. Aren't Baptists supposed to be the ones who believe in the literal translation of Scripture?)

Jesus sent out the disciples to the lost sheep of Israel with authority and strong words of encouragement to preach the gospel, heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and to drive out demons because they were to freely give of what they had freely received. The disciples were instructed not to take along any gold, or silver, or copper money and no luggage, because "the worker is worth his keep," (obviously meant to apply to the little dark skinned people, but not to SBC missionaries who live in fine homes, drive new SUVs and have servants) (Matt. 10:1-10) which idea is expressed in today’s mission phraseology as "the resources are in the harvest." (ie. "why should we use our money to help the poor?" HOW RIDICULOUS! Can you imagine Jesus saying, "heal thyself" or "I have come that you might find the life that you already have"?) Matthew 10:11-20 indicates that the disciples were not expected to have an altogether easy entrance into their mission world. Instead of ease, they were instructed to expect hardships of rejection, betrayal, arrests and trials (Unlike SBC missionaries to the Middle East who are taught to lie about their presence in the country and do everything possible to avoid any rejection). Jesus sent them out "like sheep among wolves." Jesus also gave similar instructions to the 72 whom he sent out later. (Luke 10:1-12) Later, in Luke 22:35-36, even when Jesus gave further instructions indicating the need for provisions of a money belt, a bag and a sword, these provisions were the simplest ones that allowed the worker to be sent out for ministry.
The Apostle Paul traveled throughout most of the known world of the Roman Empire, working, teaching, writing, preaching, suffering various trials and hardships, and witnessing, with almost no mention made of any financial or material aid for those receiving the witness. He did, of course, collect an offering for the faithful in Jerusalem who were suffering a lack of necessities, probably as a result of persecution. (So admittedly the Apostle Paul collected money for the poor in another country. Just a reminder - that is the thing that this article is preaching against.) Paul even worked to earn his own livelihood when the circumstances indicated. (Acts 18:3) The Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 11:16-33 describes in his own words what he suffered in order that others would hear the good news of salvation in Christ.

God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to himself, but, even though it was God the Father who was taking the initiative; it was Christ the Son who was required to pay the price of obedience that was set before him by God, the Father. (2 Cor. 5:18-21) (Any theologians have a problem with this statement, or is it just me?)

It is quite evident from the Biblical texts cited, and many others, that some of the principal ingredients for reaching the lost world were personal testimony of faith, sharing the gospel message, challenging the lost to believe, and paying the price of obedience along with some cautions about the role material resources would play. (Oh yes, quite evident in deed. Ahem. Now all you little people without Bible degrees take a seat and get ready for this great exposition).

Missionary Leadership Insight
The following insights were shared by Dr. Jerry Rankin in the September 1997 issue of The Commission magazine, a Southern Baptist International Mission Board publication, and they are echoed by many leaders in missions (who mostly live in really nice homes in America and jobs depend on American money given by American Christians; but are real experts on the sufferings of the developing world).

North Americans often see poverty and economic disparity overseas and, out of a compassionate desire to help, they wish to share of their own abundant resources. However, they are often less than fully aware of the dangers of a valid spiritual ministry (I think that is an interesting phrase, "valid spiritual ministry") degenerating into material assistance (assistance - that 's bad, right? Sounds too much like welfare. Sounds liberal or Communist or something wholly unAmerican), and how creating dependency can be detrimental to the health and growth of Kingdom efforts (Clearly the IMB are not Calvinists - at least we can be thankful for something. I mean we scoff at global warming because Man cannot destroy God's planet, but apparently individual men can harm God's Kingdom).

The International Mission Board is firmly committed to indigenous principles of missions in the work of evangelism and church planting overseas ("yes, yes firmly committed with words, lots of words, and programs, and Veggie Tales - but not money that might hurt somebody). The churches that result must have members who are growing to maturity in Christ, reaching the lost around them with the gospel, and seeing new congregations resulting from their efforts. "It is a mistake to try to accelerate growth by an infusion of financial aid to build churches and support pastors…Well intended financial assistance too often creates dependence and handicaps the initiative and faith essential for spontaneous growth (I don't know -- seems like it works in America. Funny how the Home Mission Board supports pastors, builds buildings, etc. here in the good ole USA, but when it comes to the darkies in Africa...)." When "Americans subsidize the work of churches and pastors on the mission field (Oh, I see the "mission field") potential growth is stalled because of a mind-set that it can‘t be done unless an overseas benefactor provides the funds." In such a case, the local congregation stops assuming responsibility before the Lord for the work and begins to rely more on the human benefactors to take care of them (I suppose that is why we pay our pastors here in America, because we want them to be dependant on us?). "People are deprived of growing in faith, learning to depend on God and discovering that He is sufficient for all their needs."

"Subsidy propagates a Western model of a church that sees a building and a paid pastor as essential rather than encouraging a reproducible biblical model of the church as gathered believers responsible to and for their own leadership and facilities." (Again a statement of "fact" that has no reference in reality. I personally know of churches that have been helped greatly by "western $" and they don't look or act "western". Furthermore, isn't this actually condemning the very churches that support the IMB? Don't all SBC churches in America see a building and a paid pastor as essential?)
Dr. Rankin concludes that the "Explosive growth ….around the world would never have occurred if a pattern of subsidy and dependence had been created. Unfortunately, well-intentioned help on many fields has handicapped long-term potential growth." (Hasn't most of the growth in the past 150 years been subsidized by the West? I don't get it. Has the Church grown or not? And if it has doesn't it disprove what Dr. Rankin is saying?)

Also, Dr. David Garrison has intensely studied church planting movements around the world and concludes that the use of outside resources to construct church buildings and to pay pastors’ salaries actually creates barriers to the realization of a church planting movement, because it saps local initiative. He goes on to state that these actions may produce some impressive short-term results, but they will also produce a long-term dead end. (I sorry I have no idea who this guy is, but I am willing to call him on the carpet here and ask for some statistics. Again we have a great learned man who states a "fact" based on his "intense study" and we are expected to believe him with no verification of what he says. Again, I can show you churches that are thriving and growing, and have actually been encouraged to give more when they learn that churches in America are willing to help them. How I wish there was a missions version of Snopes.com).
In his book, Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming a Lost World, Garrison lists some serious obstacles to the blossoming of a church planting movement; in fact, he designates them as seven deadly sins (Oh, God forbid that we give to the poor! What a sin! -- WOE TO THOSE WHO CALL GOOD EVIL!) which create barriers against a church planting movement. Two of them are especially pertinent for the issue being treated here.

One he names the "The Devil’s Candy." "The Devil’s Candy is deceptive, because it refers to good things that have real value" but they can hinder reaching the lost with the gospel. In the mission setting, it is the use of outside money for paying pastors and church building construction. Garrison writes that when outside (Outside? That would be "para" like "para-church"? Like a mission organization? COME ON! It is ONE Church Dr. Garrison, there is NO "outside"!) funds are used to hire pastors and construct church buildings, there may be some quick results but sustainable growth will not be realized.

A second barrier for a church planting movement is what Garrison calls "Alien Abduction (Who’s in charge here?) He continues, "There are at least three ways that Church Planting Movements can succumb to alien abduction: 1) by forcing new believers to exchange their cultural forms for alien ones, 2) by creating a welfare state (there are those liberals again!) of foreign dependency, and 3) by injecting foreign elements into the life of the church that cannot be locally reproduced."

So, when is it "help that helps" and when is it "help that hurts?" That is the question that requires much prayer, study and application of the admonition of Jesus to the twelve and the seventy when he sent them out. "Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16 KJV) How can one be wise in Kingdom service in a mission setting? By praying relevant questions through to constructive answers. (I know lets read I John 3. No, why don't we just pray and ask God to enlighten us.)

The following are some relevant prayer topics for anyone or a group committing to ministry on a mission field and who wishes to wisely invest time and resources.

Are we truly partners in Christ with local believers with commensurate responsibilities in this mission effort? (Well if your the IMB I don't know if you are a partner, but you surely are the boss).
Do our ministry and resources enhance discipleship growth and commitment? (Maybe you could have Dr Garrison do intensive study on the subject?)
Will our ministry result in disciples absolutely committed to reaching others? (Would it be a bad thing if our disciples were "absolutely committed" to worship of God?)
What would be the signs that dependency is being fostered? (Maybe no one having the intestinal fortitude to tell you and all your "resources" to take a hike?)
Who is really making the decisions about ministry here? (Some dude in Richmond, of course.)
Would the ministry continue if the outside, or foreign, resources were suddenly withdrawn? (If it is from God, and He wants it to continue).
Are we seeking the Lord’s leadership in praying alongside our national partners? (While I am sure that it must happen -- of all the mission sponsored prayer meetings I attended while an SBC missionary I can't remember one prayer meeting that involved nationals - that would have been far too risky.)
Do our ministry and resources foster more dependence upon the Lord or more dependence upon us?

Here are some additional questions that can be used volunteers:
Are we fostering a welfare state? (Again that liberal question. Is welfare that evil? My handicapped daughter gets "welfare" and thank God for it! I have no idea how she would get the medical care she needed if it weren't for "welfare". But, I'm white and work so obviously they don't mean me.)
Are we funding something that they can’t fund for themselves? (If they could fund it themselves why would we give money to pay for it??? Are you suggesting that we only give to those who have and not to those who do not have?)
If they can’t fund it themselves, is there a way it can be done that would be affordable to them/within their cultural and economic means?
If they can’t fund it themselves, are we leaving them with a financial burden to maintain it after we’re gone? So many Latino Baptists say they can’t afford to do missions because their funds are tied up in maintaining buildings, campgrounds, seminaries, and other American-spawned institutions. (Oh the poor Latinos who don't have enough good sense to sell their liabilities and turn them into assets.)

Conclusion (I'm tired of stating the obvious - I will leave you to come to your own conclusions).
The South America Region leadership, after study and prayer, has sensed a responsibility to lead missionaries and volunteers to seek ministries that have been proven to facilitate church planting movements and that avoid, as much as possible, the potential for creating dependency.
In light of the information presented in this position paper, missionaries and volunteers serving in the South America Region of the International Mission Board are strongly urged to study and pray through the issue of dependency in missions and what it means for ministry involvement. This is especially important as it relates to the construction of church buildings and subsidy, such as paying salaries of either national pastors or national missionaries, as well as purchasing or providing other material resources that are not available locally for starting churches. Because of the importance of these issues, we also ask for your understanding as we implement a guideline in the region, beginning in 2006, of no longer approving volunteer projects that involve the construction of church buildings, as well as no longer transferring funds through our offices that have as their designation the construction of church buildings, the paying of national pastor’s or national missionary’s salaries, or other financial support that creates dependency.
What are some construction alternatives for those volunteers who desire to do construction and/or provide other material resources, and, at the same time, avoid creating dependency? There are many ways that volunteers can be involved in construction projects that do not create dependency but rather impact lostness among communities and families with whom we are working. Examples of such projects are: Community Projects (School repair and renovation, Handicapped access, Stairs and Sidewalk installation, Clean water projects, Irrigation Systems, Public Bathrooms, Bus Stop Shelters, Playgrounds and Parks, Landscaping Projects) Single Family Dwellings (Painting, Roofing and repair, Cabinet building, Bathroom installation and repairs, Plumbing, Window installation and repairs, Electrical installation and repairs) Human Needs and Disaster Relief Projects. Such projects express the love of God and open doors and hearts to the gospel message.

Bibliography and Notes
Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New International Version of the Bible.
Garrison, David. Church Planting Movements, booklet, also online at www.imb.org/CPM.
Garrison, David. Church Planting Movements: How God Is Redeeming a Lost World. Midlothian, VA: WIGTake Resources, 2004, pages 240-257 especially. See www.churchplantingmovements.com.
International Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Strategic Engagement of Volunteers, pages 76-96. Richmond: International Mission Board, SBC, 2000.
McQuilkin, Robertson. "Avoiding Dependency" in Mission Frontiers magazine, August 1999, p. 38.
Rankin, Jerry. "Help That Hurts" in The Commission magazine, September 1997.

Quote of the Weak - Proselytize

"Every attempt to impose the gospel by force, to run after people and proselytize them, to use our own resources to arrange the salvation of other people, is both futile and dangerous."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

Taken out of context one might accuse Bonhoeffer of being "unevangelical." This would be a huge mistake.

Bonhoeffer saw clearly that modern methods of evangelism were dangerous because they cheapen the gospel, and present a god that is incapable of accomplishing His will. The begging, powerless and effeminate Jesus wants to save you, if you will only ask him to...
Bonhoeffer knew the all powerful, sovereign Creator of the Universe that commands all men everywhere to believe and repent. He boldly proclaimed the Gospel and knew that God was the only faith giver. He knew that men cannot believe unless God performs a miracle at the hearing of the Word. He knew too that there must be a preacher to proclaim the Gospel. With his very life Bonhoeffer paid the cost of his discipleship (he died in a Nazi concentration camp). At the end of his life it was said of him by a fellow non-Christian prisoner, "I never knew a man who's God was so real to him."

Quote of the Weak -- Faith

"We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone."

--John Calvin











"Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distress, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:21)

John Calvin print from Art.com

Why some hate the Reformation Movement

What, you don't know?

There is a "movement" among Baptists these days. I think the word movement should indicate that there is a potential error afoot. Most movements seem to unintentionally breed cultish behavior by focusing too much on a particular teaching or passage. Even what may be called "good movements" such as the Great Awakening promoted a pendulum swing in the other direction. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and every other Christian cult that I know of was the result of or a reaction to a "movement."

You will notice that I have avoided the word "revival." Revival carries with it too much baggage and the picture of a mad man in a three piece suit pounding a pulpit. Revival also implies a connection with our emotions. So, I believe most people prefer to call what is happening a movement. However, this term is not without its connotations as well.

The charismatic movement has birthed a great number of heretics as the emphasis has been on emotions, feelings, prophesy, manifestations and revelation. Not all charismatics are heretics, mind you. This movement affected Baptists in that many churches shifted to a more emotional worship style and preaching that was pointed at the perceived needs of the congregation (salvation and personal happiness) which is now termed "man-centered preaching." Evangelism focused less on the work of God and more on the "decision" of the man.

Today there is a growing minority among Baptists that are reacting to the emphasis on emotion by appealing to reformation theology. Reformation theology being the theology that resulted (or was recovered) in the reformation movements of the 1500s in Europe. Luther, Calvin and many others had restored the doctrines of the Church Fathers, and they focused heavily on the doctrines of grace, election, predestination and salvation. Today's reformist would claim that they are seeking "God-centered preaching."

Luther was a monk that never felt saved. He tried with all his might to be saved and it was not until he understood that the "just shall live by faith" that he was freed from the bondage of a works-based salvation. He was free indeed. His was not a passionless salvation, but rather one that was worked out in fear and trembling.

Calvin seems to have been much more intellectual and scholarly in his approach (Not that Luther was a dope, he did translate the entire Bible into German. He was just more "earthy.") Both men gloried in the doctrines of grace concerning salvation and the fact that God is the one who elects to save according to His will. It is God who gives faith and God who has predestined those who receive faith to be conformed to the image of Christ.

While many may think that it is election or predestination that causes fellow believers to hate the Reformation Movement, I would submit that it is neither. I have come to the conclusion that the movement is hated because it is imbalanced.

When I first read the passages (in a college Bible study) in Romans that concern God's election, I was offended. I had grown up with an imblanced view that I had saved myself. "I was sinking deep in sin far from the peaceful shore..." But, if the Apostle Paul was right I was not sinking -- I was "DEAD in sins and trespasses." I was not seeking God, but He was seeking me. The offense was replaced with joy and a sureness that I had never known concerning my own salvation. It was not my work, rather it was the work of God. It was not MY faith, nor my sincere prayer that saved me. It was faith that God gave me regardless of my emotion, sincerity or manifestations.

My zeal for good theology sent me gorging on words about God. The more I knew the more proud and arrogant I became. I began to hate the Church in America. I came to see most churches in America as fulfillments of the prophesy concerning Laodacea (although they were rich and had need of nothing they were poor, blind, miserable and naked). I gloried in the wrath of God that was being stored up for the sons of disobedience. I gloried that I was chosen before the foundations of the World. I hated the ignorant preachers who spent more time beating me up for not tithing or being a good person than speaking about Christ.

I was becoming full of good theology. I was so full that I could not eat another bite. The sweetness of God's love had become repulsive to me as I had feasted on His glory, wrath and election. Some years later, God brought me to a point of starvation.

The day that I was told that my daughter had brain damage all of my good theology flew right out the window. "God is without body, parts or passions." "God does everything for His own glory." Extra Biblical theological statements and maxims were useless to me. All I knew was the Gospel, and I wanted God to speak to me. I cried and moaned for hours. Quote Calvin to me, are you kidding me? God had deformed my child for His own egocentric glory?!? I didn't want to hear Calvin, Luther or Billy Graham for that matter. I had to hear from God Himself. I was not hungry; I was famished.

"Do you hate your daughter?"

"No, God. Maybe I am angry with you, but how could I hate her?"

"Then why do you hate my Church? You say you love me, but you hate my Bride. Therefore, my love does not live in you."

That word was so bitter, but God's bitter word was sweet to a starving man.

Scripture does not teach us that God so desired to glorify Himself that He sent Jesus. On the contrary His word teaches us that "God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten Son." God's nature is love. He is LOVE. Of course His love brings Him glory; everything He does is glorious. But God is a God of passion and love. This passionate God loved us so much that He took on flesh, humbled Himself and became a man. He disrobed His glory and manifest His very nature of Love by submitting to death on a cross. His love and power resurrected the dead body of Christ, and it is by His love that He gives faith and His Spirit to men, and conforms them to His image. It is because of His great love that He has done this. It is because of His great love that He has maimed my daughter's body and afflicted us with trials. He is working all things together for the good of them that love Him and are called according to His good purposes.

I fear God. I mean shaking in my shoes terrified. I fear Him because of His great love. He is the Lion of Judah that tears us to pieces. He is also the Lamb of God that loves us with a jealous and divine passion. He loves us so much that we share in the sufferings of Christ so that we might be more than converted -- we might be made new creatures and conformed to His glorious image.

We have been commanded to make disciples. We have been commanded to teach and reprove. But the greatest commandment is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. If love is our motivation (as I believe it is God's), then everything that we do will be to the glory of God.

Why do some people hate the reformation movement? While it is full of zeal for good theology, it is often void of God's love, the love He has for Christ's body (His bride, the Church) and His passion that is all consuming.

You can judge a cover by the book.

You can find out a lot about people by the books they recommend, not necessarily the books on their shelves.

I admit that there is a limit to the knowledge you can gain about someone this way, but in general it is a fair method. A 30-something year old lady who recommends "Love You Forever" must be a mother of small children (or a sentimentalist at the very least). A man who recommends the "Gunowner's Bible" must be a gun owner (and maybe someone you should never insult). A pastor who has copies of Spurgeon and the Church Fathers may have read neither; instead ask him what he recommends if you really want to know where he is coming from.

I finally updated and repaired the links to my book recommendations on the IOI website Resources and Links. My wife observed that I am definitely "all over the map." It was not the subjects that seemed disconnected as I recommended books about discipleship, missions, ministry, travel (particularly Ethiopia) and theology. It was the variety of authors that seems a bit, how shall I say it -- ecumenical. Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Evangelical Free and Puritan books are among those recommended. Some might think it strange to recommend Barth, Chesterton and Edwards on the same page, but what I am looking for is the gold that each man mined rather than fitting into a particular camp. We are, after all, the Body of Christ and there are many members each with particular gifts and needs.

I love to tell people that I go to Christ Community Church, and then have them ask me what denomination we are. What they want is a label so they can understand where I am coming from. So, instead of saying we are "non-denominational" (which is a label with its own definition), I say, "We are a missions-minded community of people that are trying hard to love God and each other that grew from a former Methodist Bible church that is elder led and similar to Anglican Catholicism in liturgy with a reformed Baptist theology (that depends more on the Church Fathers than the reformers), charismatic worship and an Irish pub band that sings ancient hymns along with modern praise songs." But I guess you could have figured that out by looking at my book recommendations.

I never said I was a Calvinist...

To some it does not seem to matter what you call yourself, or who you really are. For that matter, I don't even know if we can honestly know ourselves. I am sure that my view of myself is more fancy than fact.

Lately I have gained a reputation as a flaming unevangelical five point hyper-Calvinist. I don't know exactly what I did to earn this reputation; I suppose it was predestined.

I left the Southern Baptist church five years ago, not over theology or political ideals. My family and I left because we were literally told, "Why don't you just go away? We don't want you here anymore." As much as I honestly wanted to fulfill my duty as chairman of the pastor search committee and hire the best man for the job (and I honestly would have recommended a loving Armenian over a Calvinist) it seems that you can't please everyone. And I have come to the conclusion that democracy in the Church is from Hell.

The stress got so bad I had to visit my doctor. What I needed was not a pill, but peace in a congregation that loved Jesus and each other. That is when we joined Christ Community, and not long after that I apparently became a Calvinist.

Christ Community has a reputation among some as the "smoking, drinking, cursing church." That bothered me the first time I heard it. If the people who made this accusation could only experience the love that my family has experienced. The funny thing is that these same practices can be found among the people at our former church, and I don't remember anyone ever calling it the "smoking, drinking, cursing church." What is more I have never seen anyone at CCC drink or smoke to excess, and only a couple use crude language (this is an area that they admittedly struggle with). The fact is that the labels just don't fit.

I really don't know why we like to label each other so much. It seems to be easier to build straw men rather than to actually have a relationship with others.

I suppose this is the reason for my blog. I hope that some who think they know me might actually get to know me, and that those who do know me might know me better. At the very least it is an opportunity to express myself (ie. Get things off my chest) without being interrupted.

Am I a Calvinist? It's your choice. You can be the judge.