I recently ran across someone (hello Josh Skogerboe) who insists they aren't seeker sensitive (well at least not in a BAD way... is there a good way?) and he was lauding Church of the Open Door. Interestingly enough in my first exchange with Josh about music and art, he made me think right off the bat, of Dan Adler, who had put on a music/worship seminar here locally about 8 years ago or so. At the time I thought Adler was wonderful, actually. I didn't attend but Jason did and what he brought back I really liked. Come to find out in the comments section Josh considers Dan his mentor. Imagine that. There was once a time when I would have agreed with him and all the snarky comments by others on that thread, about bad singing being so traumatic and distracting. I would humbly (ahem) suggest that if someone's off key singing distracts you from worship, the problem might be you. This is said from a piano tuner ear point of view.
This will be a little aside about piano tuning. If you are not interested, skip to the part about not being able to tune out a false message.
Jason once rudimentally measured the differences in pitch I can hear using a digital program. It was something like 4/1000 of a half step or .04 cents of a half step (I remember the number 4 but I'd have to go back and redo it in order to be more certain, it was very small in any case). Jason found a site saying a good tuning will be to .1-.01 cents accurate. So .04 cents sounds about right.
So if I can learn to focus on worship with all the distracting things I have bombarding me all the time, really, most anyone can. One of the things that irks me is when people tune guitars to a studio tuner and forget that they are not well tempered instruments. Then they play the guitar with a well tempered keyboard. AUGH! Clash! But you know, if the message is correct and the people up there are humbly doing their best... so what about the pitch. I might, if there arises an opportunity to show them how to tune to a well tempered instrument, try to do that. But I'm not going to make the case that if they don't, people might not come back! Souls might be LOST! Shame on the church for considering that 'good enough' for church! oh no! Mr Bill! (I'm truly sorry for that outburst... it was uncalled for and mean spirited. I will continue to do penance, as I already have been since September. I really think it is helping. I'm even losing weight! I will do it again probably this weekend by trudging across muddy plowed fields carrying a heavy load and standing outdoors in the cold and solitude, not speaking or moving much for hours at a time. In fact I will do it frequently for the next 6 weeks or so, through Dec 31.)
I recently tuned our church piano down because I was asked to-- someone had tuned it to an A440 tuner, which is natural to do... but they hadn't verified that indeed the organ was also tuned to A440. A few others could hear there was a problem. But not many. I personally don't know if the organ was at 440 exactly because I don't have a machine to measure it. I only have two other standards to measure against: I have two A440 tuners. One is digital and one is a good old trusty tuning fork. But both have different pitches. I can hear the difference but most people can't. So I said well forget that, I'll walk back and forth between the organ and piano, and put some sort of a weight on the key I am tuning to, for the center strings of the center octave (I did a few more on either end of the octave that way as well). Yeah, it was tedious, walking back and forth across the church umpty hundred times, adjusting the volume and deciding between flute, trumpet, and reed sound, so that it was just at the right level for tuning to (not overpowering nor too soft to balance out the piano string's pitch). I am not sure if my tuning will hold since I had to tune the whole piano down probably (guessing) an 8th of a half step. But last Sunday the piano and organ were pretty much in tune. That was a relief. If it doesn't hold I'll have to go back up again soon I guess. Strings have to work out their kinks when changed that much. And my actual tuning technique is probably not equal to my ability to discern pitch.
What I can't tune out is a false message. And we are commanded not to. We are commanded to correct error and be Bereans and hold our leadership accountable to preach the truth. But most pastors these days resent being challenged. Or they resent the way in which an issue was brought up and use it to dismiss what may be a very legitimate issue. This is legalism. Forcing people to comply to a standard of behavior that they may not be quite sanctified enough to attain, before you will do anything for their very possibly real concern. There is no grace for them, only demands for 'grace' for tolerating a false message. All this only serves to further alarm and agitate those of us trying to fulfill this legitimate service of the church. But we are being told by the hand "because you are not a hand I have no need of you." I mean who kicks their dog for barking at an intruder or other danger in the middle of the night and waking the master from a sound sleep? Sadly many people do. Yes many dogs bark at nothing or bark at every sound. But is kicking them or yelling at them going to help them learn only to bark at an intruder? Is their 'instinct' wrong? Is the manner in which they go about it wrong? Or do they just need a little refinement in discerning real danger? Perhaps those who have a problem with discernment ministries need to actually address the issue and figure out what is being barked at before condemning them.
When riding a horse, an inexperienced rider will not understand when a horse is just obstinate or when it is refusing to obey because the rider is trying to force it into a real danger that the rider cannot see (rattlesnake, bear, cougar, etc). In general we give animals more deference in this than fellow Christians to whom Hebrews 5:14 applies:
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.It is shameful.
We are commanded not to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs. Just how are we to judge what 'swine' and 'dogs' are if it is not to compare their message to the truth of Scripture?
So anyway naturally, at the mention of Open Door my curiosity got the better of Obsessive Compulsive little me. And since I heard that Jan Markell had been talking about a local Maple Grove Megachurch that was emergent (did not name the name but offered to tell people privately if they would ask her) I had to check out their site and see if that was what she meant.
Among other things, I found this statement they released a while back.
Response to Emergent Church & Contemplative Movements
The leadership insists they aren't going emergent. Does the above response to questions from their members give you any assurance whatsoever?
it shouldn't, since it and the church's teaching available online is full of emergent speak. Kind of like Rick Warren starting a book all about you with "it's not about you." Well, THEN! "But he SAYS it's not about you!"
There is also some indication that there are a few who are not asking leadership for clarification but may be drawing conclusions from what they hear from sources on the internet, radio, and other media.
Translation: don't look for truth yourself. Come to us to tell you what you should think.
"Has there been an intentional or unintentional change in Open Door’s direction both in theology and ministry practice that is not being communicated to the congregation?
No. Open Door’s vision and values are clearly articulated and have not changed, and there are no plans to change them—and certainly not to become Emergent or Contemplative."
I literally had to stifle a laugh at that one. Actually, it's kind of a silly question to ask in the first place but.. perhaps with this paraphrase you'll see why: "are you trying to deceive us?" "NO! We would never do that!"
They then go on to make excuses for allowing culture to define the church... but nooo that's not emergent or seeker sensitive is it! No it's not because... we say so!
"If Open Door were to change direction, we would, in keeping with our culture of openness and authenticity, share and discern such a shift with the congregation."
translation "If we were trying to deceive you like we ourselves have been deceived, we would tell you!"
Folks, God bless you for raising the issue with your leadership. But don't listen to the answers to the QUESTIONS -- listen to what they are telling you in their classes, sermons, book promotions, etc. They are telling you! Just not in formal words.
"Being that there is no “Emergent Church” or organization as such there is no such thing as an official Emergent theology. Most churches that identify themselves as Emergent are well within the realm of Christian orthodoxy but there are some that are not. When anti-Emergent media accuse people of advocating Emergent theology they usually offer gross generalizations which sadly do not represent what most Emergents believe or are saying.
Open Door has no posture for or against the Emergent Church but,
"But we will write a paper lambasting and mischaracterizing everyone who is saying anything bad about the Emergent church." (and that's not a posture/position?)
like any voice in the church, listens for what the Spirit is doing or not doing in these movements.
Three untrue “rumors” about typical Emergents:
Rumor #1 - Emergents do not believe in absolute truth and have accepted the implications of this for the truth claims of the gospel and the truths of scripture. Rumor #2 - Emergents are practicing eastern mysticism that is unbiblical and is being offered as “ancient Christian practices”.
Rumor #3 - Emergents are compromising the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and preaching a false gospel."
yeah...Except that most emergent churches are not within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. IN fact many evangelical churches are even drifting out of that realm far more than individuals within them realize because they are stuck in the midst of it and can't see the forest for the trees.
AND... except that all three of those so called "rumors" are in fact true. If Open Door leadership cannot see this, then they are definitely infected and part of the problem.
"They believe that in the current “post-modern” climate, arguing and proving who is right and wrong is not the best approach to sharing the life of Jesus with others. Demonstrating a life of love is more effective and then moving on to Christ’s truth claims will follow."
Soooo... it's about works, not about truth? I honestly haven't felt very loved by most emergents. So I guess that means that approach doesn't work for me. So who's going to 'love' me into the 'kingdom'? Or don't I count?
BTW it's not very loving to NOT give them the truth about how to be saved from their sins, and let them go to hell as a result. Sin has become what others do to YOU not what you do to others and the myriad ways we each daily offend a perfectly Holy God, for which we each deserve a death sentence and eternity of punishment in hell.
But God... who is rich in mercy... sent his son to pay that penalty for us. Yes this was not cosmic child abuse. It pleased God to crush him, and he agreed to be crushed, so that he might receive the ones he loves, calls, saves, and justifies, into his kingdom and back into fellowship with him forever, sparing them from their deserved punishment and causing them to be conformed to the image of his Son. Our response should be one of sorrow and gratitude and acknowledgement that we deserved that punishment, and love for his Son who showed us such self sacrificing mercy, to pay the debt we could not pay.
Unfortunately, those who believe that presenting rational arguments is the best evangelism method mistake Emergent’s emphasis on the priority of a life-witness of love as “compromising” the Gospel. This is a gross simplification and erroneous conclusion about what Emergent teachers say about biblical truth.
Ok I have heard this so many times and don't buy it but let's grant that for the sake of argument. Even so, when these SAME teachers are in an environment where this kind of 'rational' discussion/argument is WELCOMED they STILL refuse to confess Christ. What kind of witness is that? Surely then you don't expect us ignorant people to believe will freely confess the truth of Christ then in a hostile environment of unbelievers to whom they have shown this great love? I would challenge them to explain how they are more loving than the rest of us faulty humans too. "Oh, Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that smug unloving pharisee over there who knows her Bible! I thank thee that you have made me more loving than them"? When do the unbelievers ever hear it, then?
Mark Driscoll, once part of Emergent, he can see it! I have my issues with Driscoll too but I praise the LORD he is calling a spade a spade now regarding the Emergent church. But Open Door can do nothing but at the most say stuff like "no we're not going emergent" and "emergent isn't all as bad as the mean nasty alarmist naysayers make it out to be." and "we have no position on the Emergent/contemplative movement." If it's not all that bad why are they "definitely not" going emergent/contemplative?
As to rumor #2, Emergents are not embracing eastern mysticism and are truly practicing ancient Christian practices (Meditation on Scripture, Silence, Solitude), which have been used throughout Church history, including the Reformation. These practices have been lost to Evangelicals in recent history, and are now being recovered..
Oh mannnnnn! Yes, folks, that is mysticism, same as Eastern mysticism, just dressed up in apostate Christian garb.
Even while there are some false rumors or perceptions about the Emergent church, there also exist areas of concern about Emergent approaches:
1- Emergent pre-occupation with being in “conversation” with each other and the danger of ministry being an ingrown and fruitless dialogue among Christians.
2- Emergent “deconstruction” or dismantling of old ways of doing church and other methods of ministry without any constructive outcomes.
3- Emergent attempts to relate Christian truth and witness to Post-modernism and an overemphasis of relating the gospel to this philosophical approach just when the philosophy of post-modernism is becoming discarded and is disintegrating as a major force.
All of which seem to be happening quite obviously in Open Door's preaching/teaching.
That last one there is kind of making me chuckle too. It translates to "they're becoming passe! Oh no!" Any idea why they're becoming passe? Because people are seeing through the fleece to the wolf underneath, thanks to the 'alarmist' voices Open Door's leadership poo poos at the beginning of the document. But I bet they'd disagree with me on that reason. Just a hunch.
Is Open Door becoming “Emergent”?
No, Open Door is not Emergent and is not becoming Emergent nor are we in association with anything that might be the Emergent Movement.
Nope nothing to see here. We'll say it again. Nope we aren't emergent. Really. Trust us. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There are Five lights. (a reference for you trekkies)
We do read or refer to some authors who label themselves as Emergent (such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt) and find that there are some directions in their thinking that are both causes for caution but also for our serious and healthy consideration. We do not find that there is anything close to what the others are claiming to be true of these leaders although there are things that we definitely disagree with in their positions as well as things we agree with.
OH yes eat the meat and spit out the bones. I read a few words in Velvet Elvis that I agreed with too. I think he used the word "the" a few times. And there's John Eldredge. I guess if you want to say "God as lover" and just every time they say something sensual about God being intimate with you, mentally substitute 'your spouse' in for God, then it would be OK to teach in church.
I mean really. Get serious. Let's just bring in Mein Kampf and mine it for truth. There has to be SOMETHING thought provoking in it doesn't there?
CS Lewis (with whom I have issues regarding his inclusivist hints here and there) talked about evil... evil cannot exist by itself. He uses the phrase 'good power' here to mean God from which all good gifts come. The bad power is of course the Satan enemy who corrupts what God has made. From Mere Christianity, the chapter entitled "The Invasion."
"you can be good for the sake of goodness, you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. You can do a kind action when you are not feeling kind, or when it gives you no pleasure, simply because kindness is right. But no one ever did a cruel action simply because cruelty is wrong. Only because cruelty was pleasant or useful to him. In other words badness cannot succeed even by being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled. ... to be bad he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power; even to be bad he must steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things -- resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself."
In like manner, truth, teaching, can be bad or good. To be bad, and to be EFFECTIVE it must have enough truth in it to get people to buy it. But that still does not make it GOOD because it has good elements to it. It simply uses those elements to hide the razor blade in the candy bar. I mean really would you say that a razor blade hidden in a candy bar means the candy bar, or just a little cyanide in a bottle of tylenol means is still good and worthy of your consideration? It's amazing how people will make relatively sound judgement about things dangerous to their physical health and then greedily imbibe poison like a dog drinking antifreeze. Because it smells and tastes good. They scream and holler like a toddler who resents their parents taking the dangerous-but-pretty bottle of drain cleaner away from them because they cannot tell the difference. They think people who put the sign "bad water" on a contaminated pool in the desert are doing it just to be mean and critical, so they can die of dehydration. Or that those who tell them not to drink salt water when they are shipwrecked and they have only a bottle of water to share among them are doing it for selfish reasons. Because they're REALLY REALLY thirsty!
But the tragic thing is, we have a living spring of water in Scripture if we will only avail ourselves of it. If we are actually drinking this living water, why would we want to go back to the botulsim- / e-coli- tainted stagnant desert pool, or drink salt water? And why would we resent those who tell us to stop drinking that bad stuff?
Next post will deal with the second half of their statement, that of their position on the contemplative movement, and then after that I'll tackle their latest messages.
