Friday, August 29, 2008

Asleep in the Light

Wide Awake by Erwin McManus
Nelson Publishers, 252 pages

At first I was uncertain about writing this book. It could so easily become a formula for self-indulgence.
–Erwin Mcmanus on the writing of Wide Awake

To follow Erwin McManus’s career, quotes, and books is to invite the task of Sisyphus in your life. You keep rolling that stone up the hill but you get nowhere. In fact, you end up at a spiritual deficit with more questions than answers and more despair than hope. Take, for example, the notion that his Mosaic church touches those that have been left unreached by the “pharisaical church” as he calls it. While he believes that the Christian church is full of “conformists,” his church is filled with “dreamers” and “revolutionaries” that are armed with a gospel that is “relevant.” He also goes to great pains to declare that his church isn’t about building up an already fattened flock but about extending to the uncommitted and non-churchgoer. Reading this you would think that Erwin might have the language to reach this secular culture more effectively. Then you get on the Mosaic website and you are greeted by this verbiage: “become an unstoppable force by shaping and apostolic ethos within a missional community.” Elsewhere, there is an explanation that “the focus of this ethos is found through this commission. The spiritual environmentalist focuses on five elements for spiritual health: wind, water, fire, wood, and earth.” Who, if not Christians, would this message be directed at? Of course they are directed at Christians because a non-Christian would be totally confused by it. Come to think of it, even Christians might be. The language is so muddled with impractical and vague concepts as to be worthless. When he writes “mission” is why the church exists, what does he mean? The Great Commision? The Midnight Mission ? The San Gabriel Mission? “Relevance to culture is not optional” is another well-meaning but utterly vague and impractical concept. After all, who is the arbitrator for what is relevant and why can’t it be optional? Some of us think that the culture is on a slide, both spiritually and artistically. So if we go to Mosaic we have to immerse ourselves into today’s pop culture? It’s so hard to get answers when none are forthcoming. It’s rolling that boulder up that lonely hill.
McManus confuses his audience even more by some of his outrageous quotes. Take for example this one: “two signs of a healthy church are sexual immorality and heresy.” This qualifies as a good McManus quote because it places squarely in the realm of “edgy.” But what happens when the rooster comes to roost, as when a young lady at his church begins to date a Jewish man? According to the woman, instead of gentle reproofs she is isolated, ignored, and abandoned. When have we heard this before? How about this quote: “For centuries the church has been telling us if we want God to love us, we need to follow the rules. It’s been far more important to focus on the sin problem than the love problem. This is the only way the institution can maintain control over our lives.” As Frank Lutz puts it when he is advising presidents: “It’s not what you say it is what people hear.” In other words, be very careful what you say because the listener might think you will have no problem with a particular lifestyle, because, after all, why focus so much on the “sin problem?” And, sure enough, another member with a problem has come forward, and again, been devastated by this coy bait and switch technique.
And then, finally, you come to McManus’s books, and if there was a stone to roll uphill, this is surely Mount Everest . Erwin Mcmanus’s Wide Awake reads like the Christian cover version of Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. McManus gives us nine attributes to be "wide awake," which, as he defines it, is to "rediscover your hopes, dreams, and passions, and to break the monotony and live the life God intended." These attributes, though seemingly arbitrary, are "essential," which are: dream, discover, adapt, expect, focus, create, enjoy, invest, and imagine. When writing about dreams, McManus writes that it is more "devastating to the human spirit to give up on our dreams altogether." Leave aside the fact that there are thousands of people who have given up their dreams of being an artist to start a family and lead normal, even happy lives; does McManus really believe his statement? Aren’t there even more devastating things in the world? I can think of chemical dependency, marital strife, and living in a war zone for starters. I’d gladly give up every dream I have to not get stricken with cancer or get stuck in a loveless marriage, if given the choice. McManus, of course, doesn’t back his claim with scripture but instead layers his chapter with lazy assertions and banalities: "Your dreams create space for the dreams of others," "you will not become everything you dream, but you will never become anything you don’t dream of." When McManus does quote scripture, it is more of a "let’s launch this puppy and see what it can do" variety of exegesis. He’ll set up long passages, comment very little, and count on the reader to fill in the holes. And there are holes. His commentary on Ezekiel 37, the powerful chapter where God tells Ezekiel to speak to the dry bones, is this: "So dreams are so powerful that you cannot let them rest in your sleep. You have to live them when you’re awake. You dream with your eyes wide open." And then McManus moves on to other things.
McManus opens chapter 2, "Discover," with this sentence, "We were in an open jeep in the northern tip of South Africa …" Elsewhere in the book, he writes, "on a recent family trip to Paris," and in another passage, he tells a story after he "came home from a recent trip to Australia and New Zealand." It’s difficult to read these passages without thinking of the morass that has become of his Awaken ministries. Is it a non-profit or a for-profit? Where is all the money going and how is the financial accountability handled? There needs to be more disclosure when it comes to Christian ministries, not less. You better believe non-Christians are more skeptical than most when they read about a Christian minister hunting for the best gelato spots in Italy as McManus does in his account on page 189.
To discover is to learn, according to McManus: "when you live in a relationship to God, learning is a given." But what you are learning is not made clear here and studying the Bible is certainly not a priority with McManus. So I ask: what exactly are you learning under this man’s leadership? McManus often speaks of engaging the world in a "conversation." But when reading chapter two, the reader is left wondering if the conversation ever steers toward "dead in your trespasses." In fact, it often veers in the direction of self-importance. On page fifty, he writes, "you are created by God to be a pioneer, to explore unknown places and have uncertain experiences because he created you to solve whatever challenges and problems and obstacles you will face in that place. When you live up to your greatness, the world is made better." When reading a passage like this, you're left wondering how McManus deals with Jeremiah 17:9 or Romans 3:10. The deception is subtle but present: "you are created to be a pioneer" to "explore unknown places" as opposed to being "created for good works." Even more egregious is his "when you live up to your greatness" as opposed to "there is no one who does good" and the "heart is desperately sick." In the next chapter, McManus tells us to "adapt," which he interprets as to "continually reinvent ourselves." By way of example, he chooses Daniel as a man who adapts. Daniel, according to McManus, "lived under oppression and had every excuse for not accomplishing anything significant...instead of drifting into obscurity, stepped up, learned everything he could and rose above the circumstances. It was in the context of unimaginable difficulty that he was formed into an extraordinary individual." Talk about stripping the power of Daniel in the lion's den and reducing it to a formula for self-indulgence! Daniel's unyielding faith is boiled down to a trite "significant accomplishment" while his wisdom to reject the king's food allowed him to "drift above obscurity." God help you, reader, if you end up obscure in the eyes of the world or worse, gulp, not accomplishing something "significant." Notably absent from the description is the word "holy." Instead, we get the milquetoast phrases "insatiable curiosity," "determination," and "adaptation." It's ironic, but I walk away from the Daniel story, my favorite in the Old Testament, thinking he was anything but adapting. He was unyielding.
Chapter 3 brings us to "Expect." I get nervous when I read that word after the debacle of the word-faith movement's "Expect a Miracle!" campaign. My fears are confirmed when McManus writes on page ninety two: "one of the most important characteristics of people who achieve the extraordinary is they live a life of expectation--they expect the good to happen; they internalize optimism." Faith for McManus isn't only the substance of things hoped for but also the "promise of a better world, a better future, a better you." It's inexplicable that he chooses "focus" as his fifth attribute when he himself admits he lacks focus. On page 126, no less than the Emperor himself, Rick Warren, asks McManus if he has ADD, while others close to him say his biggest deficit is lack of...well, focus. I won't hold that against him as much as his unbreakable habit to cling to bland phrases and empty philosophy: "without a sense of destiny you will diffuse your energy. When you are focused, you are your most powerful. A destiny is not something waiting for you but something waiting within you." What is significant here is not only what is present but what is lacking. There is no encouragement in the Lord, no love for the Word, no seeking wise counsel, no keeping thy way pure, no seeking first the kingdom of God . Instead, there is a tendency to put the self on the throne through the idea of a "destiny waiting within you." In Soul Cravings, he claimed humans have divine potential and that what you are looking for is there "within you." The "Focus" chapter also screams for better editing. At its worst, McManus chokes us with metaphors before taking us through the rabbit hole: "We're looking for a yellow brick road or a clearly paved one-way street. We want a straight line from point A to point B. We often think of God's will more as a tightrope than a compass. We want one path, clearly lit and marked so we know exactly where to go. We don’t think of ourselves like little mice smelling for the cheese while God shows us the way through the maze. We act as if the spiritual journey is like God leaving little breadcrumbs, and we are Hansel and Gretel. Through the woods we can find our way home. But somewhere along the way all the ravens ate the breadcrumbs and we’re lost in the forest, asking God ‘where do I go.’ ” Wide Awake sometimes drifts into a kind of dreamy stream of consciousness that lacks substance or practicality. Think Stuart Smalley meets Robert Schuller in this passage: “You are commissioned to write a great symphony. It is the masterpiece of your life. You have been entrusted with this creative process. You are essential to this work of art—and the art requires that you act. You bring the notes that will be played. The symphony, though, is in great hands. The great Conductor will bring it all together, and the sound will be glorious. In the end, you are not only an artist; you are also an activist.”
It is in the “Create” chapter that I am reminded of McManus’s love for culture, art, and relevance and how fleeting and irrelevant it all really is. He opens the chapter with him and a friend scrambling over a “long line of humanity” excited and breathless at an art museum to get a glimpse of…Banksy. Banksy?? The graffiti artist? I mean, make a play for Shepard Fairey, that other flavor of the month guerilla artist. At least Fairey has a workshop at this week’s Democratic convention and takes phone calls from Barack Obama. But really now, who cares about either of them? This Christian movement that tries so hard to keep up with the silly trends of our narcissistic culture to stay “relevant” reminds me of the runt who tries on his father’s clothes in front of a mirror. They just don’t fit, son. You want to tell the kid to just be himself. But figures like Erwin McManus will continue to sell you the idea that he is relevant and even ahead of his time: “More than twenty years ago I began my work as a futurist. Not the kind who simply gets a glimpse of what tomorrow could look like, but the kind who shapes what tomorrow will look like.” (page 32) No, this isn’t the runt, this is the guy who just drove in from the Midwest, looking “LA Cool” while gliding into the Geisha house wearing sunglasses bought from Hollywood and Highland . While “noshing” on some sushi, he asks you if you caught the latest Godard retrospective at the Nuart. Meanwhile, everyone in the restaurant stares at the guy thinking the same thing: “what’s with the carpetbagger?” He.Tries. Too. Hard.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Letters, We Get Letters

I have received my share of responses from the Mosaic of Love and here is just a sample. All comments are in quotes. My response is in bold. Enjoy:

"You are such a complete idiot. (And a pretty arrogant one as well!) I've read both blogs and you sir, are completely out of line and have misrepresented everything. I've read all of these blogs, and you and your peeps come across pathetic and petty. If "healing" and "repentence" was really what you wanted, even a small mentally challenged child would know that these silly blogs are not the way to do that."

"cry babies"

"This is a hate site filled with vile and evil. This site is no different than a KKK site or a neo-Nazi site. All of you write with such vitriolic language, I fear you would wish to see Erwin McManus die at your own hands. Your writings attempt to incite violence against God’s church and His people. Do you wish for Erwin’s death? If I were Erwin, I would fear for my family’s well being. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. You should all repent and beg for God to forgive you of your contemptuous hearts."

"Why would you not call us or talk face to face? That's what Christians do. They don't publish vomit. This is now what you do for a living. You are the host of a Mosaic hate blog. I feel deep sorrow for you."

"Yes, the (BTI) fund was spent in part to buy the facility at Inland (which is 1.3 miles outside of LA County), to refurbish William Carey (Mosaic has it on full lease for 7 years) and is looking for land in Beverly Hills (btw, there is no Pomona County). So, technically they did spend the money on a building. "

"Plans change. Chino became a part of Mosaic and needed help. It was money well spent. Thanks for your generous donations! The people at Mosaic Inland greatly appreciate it...By the way, thanks for the comfty chairs at Chino. They make all the difference in the world!"

"If you are actually a believer in Christ (which I question at this point), You would be interested in speaking the truth in love so as to bring a reconciliation before the Cross. I appeal to you by the Lord Jesus to do just that. There is no place in the church for the anonymous throwing of accusations (Satan is the "accuser of the brethren). How do I know that your attack isn't because you have a root of bitterness in your own heart that has defiled you and is reaching out to defile others? Or that you have chosen to forsake the Lord?"

"I really do hope more credible (not "anonymous" people) come forward to give us some concrete evidence of Erwin's wrongdoings. NO disrespect, but intense discussions at BBQs, under appreciation for use of an edit bay, not doing someone's wedding, asking someone to step down and get help in a time of personal family crisis are definitely not enough to call for a man's resignation. You talk about all of the pain, I am just not seeing what merits that, besides being hurt over the Brady/Mosaic transition."

"for those who you who figure out who i am, and you have something to say. find me and say it. and if you decide to email me, give me a name and face so i know you got the gonads to face me as a real person..i dare you to post my comment and this one as well. let the people visiting this site you have nothing to hide. let them know you are witting and silly comments can combat anything. but if you decide to get serious with it, i'll know you are real when i revisit this page in a few days and see both of my comments posted."

"I'd never heard of the syndrome known as Narcisissm in the Pulpit. I have heard a lot though about a different syndrome -- Narcisissm in the Pew. Has anyone talked about that yet?Oh wait, I guess you guys do every day."

"Well...I guess if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, blogs like a duck..."

"quit hating on Erwin, he leads people to Christ and is all about the revival in this land and around the world."

"I think that you are missing the "behind the scenes" of Mosaic’s and Erwin’s ability shape culture. Do not assume that because someone is not in the spotlight or given tons of money that they aren't affecting culture.Not too many Christian personalities can say that they have the attention of the Disney Corporation's CEO. Not too many people can say that they are invited to dinners in Beverly Hills with Dr. Phil, Larry King and 50 of the A list Hollywood celebrities."

"okay first of all, if erwin is the problem then everyone from MOP is to blame. After all, you guys allowed this man to enter your church and take the role as lead pastor. How I see it, it was the original members of Church on Brady that allowed this to happen. didn't anyone even bother to check him out or were you all "enchanted" by his charisma? Did you at least checkout his theology and personal beliefs? If he is this bad, this should have been stopped in 1997, NOT 2007. You guys, Frank, Robby, Cris, etc, are the ones that failed Brother Tom and the rest of the congregation. due diligence. guard your house!!!"

"Is there any real purpose to all of this? What can a MOP do to change any of it?"

------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the important question, correct? What is the purpose of MOP? A response from a particular Mosaic member responded better than I could. She writes:



"Well guys,

Thank you so much for your further clarification. I am very concerned, and completely disagree with the handling of the money. I'm also concerned that a group of 40 leaders were informed of this decision, yet, my husband and I weren't. I believe that there needs to be a public disclosure about this, beyond the comments of this blog, that comes from the Mosaic leadership team itself, to the congregation at Mosaic.

Please say a prayer for us, as we consider how to move forward with our concerns. I am tempted to not even try to confront these issues, as it seems that many people are treated poorly when they confront things.

I am also concerned that Erwin has never mentioned in his books or at leadership advance, etc, anything about being willing to purchase a building, let alone the fact that Mosaic at one point set out to buy a building. One of the reasons my husband and I chose Mosaic as home, was because it wasn't centered around a building, and made claims that Church on Brady was sold because of the same reasoning. Sounds like we've been manipulated and lied to. We came from a church that was destroyed by a crazy building program and misuse of funds, and here we go again. I'm just so grieved right now. I think things like this is why Erwin's coined phrase about "Christianity being an enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ" has meaning. Church politics and spiritual abuse is one of those things in Christianity that make people turn away. I wonder if Erwin has considered that his own actions in church have fueled this idea?

I'm am thankful that you are willing to speak in a public forum about this and are putting your names out there, and taking a stand. God Bless You All.

Erwin and Mosaic Staff,

If you are reading this, I may or may not try and talk to you guys about all of this for your explanation. But, regardless of what answers I may or may not get, please think through the possibility of coming clean to your congregation about what's going on right now. Please meet with these men and women who have been wounded. I agree with them, a public forum would be best to give them the opportunity to heal and move on. That's the only way for them to feel safe."

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Tartuffe

"Let another praise you and not your own mouth." ---Proverbs 27:2

"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6

About five years ago, a friend recommended I read the play "Tartuffe." He felt it had certain parallels with the church I had been attending at the time. I read it and he was right. Herein is my review of the play.

“Tartuffe” is a story of betrayal and injustice on a grand scale. That it is a comedy, and a funny one at that, is ironic but makes the play more palatable in light of its severely flawed main character. The amount of savagery and heartbreak a single person can wreak is remarkable and is at the core of this play. Tartuffe wears a cloak of religious spirituality which only makes his cunning more effective. This man "wishes from pure charity to take everything away from you which might become an obstacle for your salvation." And he takes and he takes and he takes: spiritual manipulation, subtle seductions through clever words to win people, and a coup to take over a kingdom are all part of his scheme. Tartuffe never seems to tire of wrongdoing. This play shows the damage done to a family by this one-man wrecking crew. It also reveals the folly of ignoring sound advice and how easy it is to deceive people if your manipulations are couched in spiritual words.
This play by Moliere is the story of a pitiless, penniless scoundrel taken in by a wealthy family man named Orgon. The main character doesn’t show until act three but his mark already had been made. One by one Orgon’s family comes in and warns him about Tartuffe: his wife, son, daughter, and brother-in-law. But does he listen? They recount a catalogue of misdeeds by Tartuffe: the bombastic announcing of his own righteous acts, the way he sneers at so many who are not as holy and sacrificial as he, his constant scheming for more power. Orgon ignores it. His daughter, who refuses Orgon’s demand that she marry Tartuffe, complains of him: "whosoever embraces the innocence of a holy life should not boast so much about his name and lineage and the humble ways of worship do not agree with his outburst of ambition." Orgon sneers and reminds her that Tartuffe is "well known" and a "nobleman." Cleante, Orgon’s brother in law, speaks of Tartuffe as a "pretended zealot" who "possesses an unusual love for this world only to make a fortune in this one." Orgon laughs it off and tells him that Tartuffe has a higher mindset and that he is "spiritual" and "not of this world." A spirituality of this kind, one that glorifies the riches of this world while making a show for the "love for the next world," seems familiar. In the spiritual fog of our current times, we see example after example of this. We know of a pastor in the church today who seems mesmerized by the false glare of having a life "God dreamed for you" and one that is driven by an "unleashed faith." There is little talk about denying our passions that run counter to the message of Christ. On the contrary, the passions of humanity affirm only good things and continually seek God, according to this deluded pastor. This is Tartuffe reborn: a rejection of the humble worship of God and a coveting of worldly ambition. There is plenty of haughty talk from this pastor about a Christianity that is a "crash" and that is so strong it seems "uncivilized,” but it, in fact, is the tamest form of Christianity around. Instead of a faith that demands us to humbly serve the Holy One we get a tepid Christianity that asks us: "What’s best for you?"
Despite the warnings and protests of his family, Orgon falls prey to Tartuffe’s charms and brings him into his home. When the hen invites the fox into the chicken coop is there any hope for the hen? The hen can only hope that the fox will eat him last. In an act of comical indecency, Tartuffe attempts to steal Orgon’s entire estate from under his nose. Of course, he does this with formality and with a kind of false kindness that is his signature. Tartuffe cowardly sends an intermediary with a message: "I shall take care not to disturb your rest, and to permit nothing which is not right. By tomorrow you must be ready to clear the house of even the slightest utensil." When Orgon kicks up a cry of protest, Tartuffe hires armed guards to chase him away and is determined to turn his family against him. Orgon’s reply is strong, if not late: "this is the stroke, villain, by which you dispatch me and which crowns all your treacheries." How could Tartuffe be so insensitive and ungrateful as to send away the very person who invited him there in the first place? Talk about a parallel to our current crisis! There is a pastor who dismissed from his church the very two people who invited and welcomed him in. Thank you for bringing me into your home. Now leave. This coup by Tartuffe can be useful when examined as a symbol in what is going on among evangelicals today. This pastor and other church leaders have attempted to take over the Church through a hollow and secular philosophy. There has been warning after warning about a takeover of leaders inhospitable to the message of Christ. But will the Church listen?
For all its strengths as a lesson of the damage done by hypocrisy, "Tartuffe" also serves as a warning of how the charisma of one man can tantalize and destroy. All Tartuffe, or anyone for that matter, has to do is put a spiritual flair on their bankrupt ideas and they’ll win people over. A passionate individual before an uncritical audience is a combustible mix. This is especially a problem when the individual states that he doesn’t build his life according to God’s word. Contrast this to the scriptures, which clearly tell us to "study to show yourselves approved." We have already seen doctrinal abuse, relativism, mysticism, and Gnosticism readily accepted into mainstream churches. How did this happen? Here’s an experiment: Simply decorate ancient paganism with a "Christ follower" banner and thousands may follow you, too. Like Tartuffe, many leaders in the church today want to "take everything away from you which will be an obstacle to your salvation." And if that includes your salvation, too, well, so be it.

Friday, June 15, 2007

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

This is response to the recent on-line article written by Erwin McManus: http://www.thecronline.com/mag_article.php?mid=1016&mname=June

"I was online the other day and up popped a web site that went into detail about how I am a heretic and Mosaic is a danger to the Christian faith. Honestly in the past this would have brought me great pain but this time I could only laugh." --Erwin McManus

"Tell the truth, but tell it slant." ---Emily Dickinson

Something happens to Erwin McManus when he defends himself. He writes in clear and thoughtful detail. Absent is all that mind-numbing talk of cravings, barbarians, relevance, slow adopters, futurists, architects, etc. You read his latest on-line article and you breathe a sigh of relief that he has avoided all the jargon that only serves to confuse. It is easily the best thing he has ever written. I think you will also find that the information he has given is incomplete. Is he referring to the Mosaic of Pain blog when he writes that he "could only laugh" at it? If so, he did not laugh but got very angry, according to one witness. In addition, he found the blogger so funny that he encouraged some on his staff to make a special trip to his house to encourage him to shut it down. When that didn’t work, he called the cops on him. I suppose a sense of humor goes only so far. Perhaps I am just speculating and he isn't referring to Mosaic of Pain at all but some other blog that considers Mosaic a "danger to the Christian faith."
He also writes that these are Mosaic's 5 Core Convictions:
1) The Scriptures are God’s authoritative word to us.
2) Jesus is the only way through which we come to God.
3) The local church is God’s agent for redemptive change.
4) Every believer is called and gifted to serve the body and seek the lost.
5) Our call is to all the world.

But many of us know that the real convictions that they hold dear are these:
1) Mission is why the church exists
2) Love is the context for all mission
3) Structure must submit to spirit
4) Relevance to culture is not optional
5) Creativity is the natural result of spirituality

Why does Erwin bother to print any convictions at all? Is it because he forced a long-time member to drop her mission trip when she raised objections to the five core values? I know this member well and I am confident that she opposed the five latter values posted here rather than the five former ones. Only the die-hard, true-blue, completely committed Mosaic believers accept the "relevance to culture is not optional" mantra. When I was there, few of the more biblically grounded members quoted it and fewer still seemed to believe it. Values like "structure must submit to spirit" and "creativity is the natural result of spirituality" are so ambiguous that they fail to resonate with biblically sound members. Which structure is being referred to here, and which spirit? What if someone opposed an idea being bandied about the church from a biblically based structure? Does that member must now concede that structure must submit to spirit and be quiet? Similarly, if creativity is the natural result of spirituality, can Anthony Kiedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers be considered spiritual? Substitute Oliver Stone into my question, or Steven Spielberg, Marilyn Manson, Eminem, or anyone you find creative. This kind of confusion is inevitable whenever you replace Jesus with a man-centered theology. "Structure must submit to spirit" is a lot less definitive than "I am the way, the truth and the life."

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black
Those who have been harmed by this church sense an irony over the core conviction that "Love is the context for all mission." All churches go through their share of members leaving over a hurt or perceived hurt. Unfortunately, the Church is filled with sinful people, saved but sinful. There will always be some amount of pain and ideally reconciliation is the goal when this occurs. But it is astonishing to see the many great leaders who have been left bleeding at the altar of Mosaic. If this church is considered "special" or "different," recognize that one of its defining qualities is that it has crushed so many. Even if you subscribe to the idea that this is collateral damage or that men of God often "disagree," why hasn’t Erwin McManus done more to reconcile with the dozens of leaders, both on paid staff or lay people? All he has done is bring more pain to his own flock by not even attempting to make things right. Scroll through his recent article and you come across this gem: "Why is it then we who are supposed to be known as His disciples by our love for one another keep shooting our own?" Yes, why indeed? Why does McManus feel the need to shoot down John McArthur? Why does he shoot down the church on Brady and allow the revisionist of its history to fluorish? Why does he shoot down the Christian church by saying it is filled with conformists? Why did he shoot down a pastor and his family by firing him after twenty-five years of service? Why has he sacked multiple staff members and kept his church in the dark about it? For a man criticizing the way the Church shoots his own, he sure seems locked and loaded himself. I say this with all due respect: someone is in need of a mirror.

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The Backward Church

The Future Church: Ministry in a Post-Seeker Age
By Jim L. Wilson
Serendipity House

Jim Wilson attempts to define the "Future Church," in this book as more innovative than the contemporary church. It seeks to "be relevant to the post-seeker age as the contemporary church was to the seeker era." These definitions are, at best, question begging. What is "post-seeker," after all, and how did we get there? When, exactly, did we leave the "seeker-sensitive" era? Why is the future church better than the contemporary church? What exactly is the contemporary church and why is it inferior to the future church besides it being less "relevant?" Wilson doesn’t bother going into such details. It leaves the reader scratching his head and only assures confusion and even suspicion. This is because its title is a false start. We still don’t know what the future looks like, no matter what "futurists" say. The American Heritage dictionary defines future as the "indefinite time yet to come," indefinite meaning uncertain or unclear. It is unfortunate for Wilson that the forward to his book sheds no light on this problem but further muddies it. Sally Morgenthaler, in the forward, writes: "The Future Church is already here, in seminal form, but here." The qualifier "seminal" feels awkward and uninspired in the context of her piece. She writes things like "what will be in five or ten years is uncertain but we will be well to take notice. " Well, why gush that "the future church" is here in the first place? It’s like Paul Revere making his midnight crossing saying, "The British are coming, the British are coming!" followed by "well, they are coming in theory" and then "well, I am not sure they are coming but we would be wise to take heed because they might come." Worse for her readers, Morgenthaler furthers her argument for the future church with ham-handed prose. She writes: "The new church is here, it came imperceptibly, like a waft of first spring musk at the tired edge of winter; barely distinguishable, yet blowing into the subconscious a sense of much longed for visitation." You can see creative writing professors everywhere sinking in their chairs. (It is odd that a movement that boasts "futurists" and "seers" would feature such dreadful writers.) Ultimately, Jim Wilson fails to convince the reader that such a future church exists or that it even matters. Instead he allows assertion, contradictory information, and lazy research to punctuate his arguments.

Wilson opens his second chapter with some seriously confused assertions: "conventional wisdom says one religion is as good as another." If conventional wisdom actually does say that (although that point is arguable), since when have Christians been encouraged to trust the philosophical smog of our culture? If a writer or thinker equates Christianity with, say, Islam, by saying it is "as good," shouldn’t it be expected of Christians to explain the differences? No such explanation is given here. And here’s how Wilson completes the sub-heading: "Gurus, mystics, and psychics are as legitimate as priests, rabbis, and ministers in today’s super-charged spiritual environment." What? No they are not. Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew, hosted a radio program that for years featured religious leaders. He gave countless airtime and had vigorous discussions with Christian ministers but rarely if ever featured psychics or "mystics" on his show. Though I am not a fan of Larry King, his show has featured Christians such as Rick Warren and James Dobson in serious discussions. He has had psychics like Sylvia Browne on his show, but didn’t seem to take her claims all that seriously. Not even the most cynical atheist gives psychics the same benefit of credibility as ministers and rabbis. Christopher Hitchens’s recent book "god is not Great" and Richard Dawkins’s "The God Illusion" excoriate Christianity for sure, but they don’t devote much space to psychics, "gurus," or tea leaf readers. Spiritual hacks such as these are ignored and even laughed at. They are not considered "legitimate." You would think that this movement of futurists in tune with our culture would at least find the time to get in touch with what is actually going on in the culture.

By way of example of a future church, Erwin McManus gets top billing. But why is Erwin McManus’s Mosaic church considered a future church? Well, for one reason, because Erwin said it was. For readers who have been following the recent controversy regarding his church, Erwin’s word just isn’t good enough. Wilson also offers this tour of Mosaic: "hanging from the ceiling was one of those Saturday Night Fever film reflector balls …most of the 300-plus in attendance sat on the chairs on the dance floor…Mosaic services are definitely in the 21st century. The music ranges from Santana smooth to urban alternative…worship leaders weave drama, dance, and MTV-style video clips into the texture of the service." Walking through this "future church" with Jim Wilson feels like a time warp. Just reading it makes me want to break out my polyester jumpsuit with matching platform shoes. Saturday Night Fever, after all, was released in 1977. Carlos Santana is a 70’s era dinosaur who experienced a brief career resurgence in the mid-nineties. And non-Christians who experience a service with "MTV-style video clips" find it unpleasant and dated. Describing a service where people sit on a dance floor isn’t futurist. It’s logistics. And just repeating the word "future" or writing "21st century" when mentioning Mosaic does not make it so.

Wilson does himself no favors by quoting George Barna to bolster his argument. Barna shows research that contradicts the idea that a church like Mosaic could call itself futurist, let alone contemporary. Certainly Mosaic would not resonate with the unchurched. Barna explains that the unchurched view "the ideal church size to be between one hundred to two hundred people; that they prefer traditional hymns with contemporary instruments and arrangements; that they don’t expect the church to put on a show for them." By those criteria, Mosaic church has gone 0 for 3. They struck out with the unchurched but they will continue to get fawning coverage from this self-congratulating club of futurists. Why let facts get in the way of the legend?

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

For Your Consideration…

..
On Hurricane Katrina:
There's a sense of urgency at Mosaic. People know I am willing to sacrifice and do whatever is necessary to be a significant voice and influence in Los Angeles and allow this to permeate across the world. And this is exciting, let me tell you. When there's a crisis with Katrina, we were there. ~~taken from Erwin McManus interview with INFUZE _______________________________________

I do have to say that at times I dealt with resentment that some ministries at Mosaic were treated with a bit of, shall I say "favoritism"? I finally did come to a point where I simply wanted to know if the leadership was with me or not and asked for a few key resources to test the waters. I am one who is not afraid to ask questions and refuse to be a bystander. This coincidentally was one or two months before Hurricane Katrina hit. If you think the US federal government did little to prepare for a catastrophe, then I would have to say Mosaic as an organization was guilty as well. Many at Mosaic reacted to the hurricane by pulling together a team and helping, but I felt that my leaders let me down by not having the vision of how we could be used if equipped with the right kinds of tools and equipment before tragedy strikes. I declined to help after Katrina and felt like it was going against my principles. I thought it was a bit hypocritical to react after the disaster when no one wanted to prepare for it in the first place. However, I did not lose the desire to help those in need.
~~Current Member at Mosaic

On Revisionist History:
Erwin Raphael McManus was invited to Los Angeles to work at the now- closed Church on Brady. He started an alternative service there that grew into Mosaic six years ago.
~~From a 2004 Los Angeles Times feature of Mosaic (you can purchase this article through LA Times archives, LATimes.com)

McManus was a key player in Mosaic’s development and attention-grabbing growth. He started an alternative service to the now-closed church on Brady, six years ago. Since then, it has grown from fewer than 100 members to nearly 2,000. ~~From a 2007 Pepperdine University feature of Mosaic (http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/living/2005/2005-01-13-mosaic.htm)
_______________________________________

In October of 1991, Erwin McManus was first introduced to The Church on Brady as the keynote speaker at Brady’s Spare Not Conference on World Evangelism. He was then invited to move to The Church on Brady and Los Angeles to transition into the role of Senior Pastor.Early in 1994, Erwin officially became Senior Pastor. Bro Thom moved into a role of "Teaching Pastor" and simultaneously accepted a teaching position at Golden Gate Seminary in San Francisco.
~~from Wikipedia, Mosaic Church

On Believing the Impossible Campaign to raise funds for a building:
“Five years ago, the Lord led us to join our lives with you to see the city of Los Angeles reached with the Gospel. Today, God is challenging us to act in faith to claim and impact Los Angeles with the life-changing message of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are at a defining moment in the history of our congregation and, I believe, the future of this city...." ~~Erwin McManus, Believing the Impossible brochure, 1997.

“It is time for us to aggressively pursue a new strategic location.” ~~from the Believe the Impossible brochure 1997

"is los angeles worth our investment? ~~ from the Believe the Impossible brochure 1997

a commitment to Los Angeles is an investment in the global future. ~~from the Believe the Impossible brochure 1997
_______________________________________

By his fifth year at the Church on Brady, McManus had persuaded members to sell their building and expand into rented spaces throughout the city. They would become a roving, nomadic congregation made up, as McManus says, of the people, the community. "We did that because we didn’t want people to think the church was a building."
~~Erwin McManus speaking to Tu Ciudad magazine, 2007

"…the fund was spent in part to buy the facility at Inland (which is 1.3 miles outside of LA County), to refurbish William Carey (Mosaic has it on full lease for 7 years) and is looking for land in Beverly Hills…So, technically they did spend the money on a building."
~~from a volunteer staff member at Mosaic

On Christians and Christianity:

"My goal is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a recatalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ." ~~Erwin McManus

“Some people are upset with me because it sounds like I’m anti-Christian. I think they might be right.” ~~Erwin McManus

“My wife tells me, ‘You don’t even like Christians. I say, ‘and?’” ~~Erwin McManus
_______________________________________

1 John 2:9-11
The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Phillipians 2:1-2
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

Galatians 5:15
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

Ephesians 4:30-32
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

My Modest Proposal

This post is considered SATIRE. I do not truly feel it is appropriate that popular culture figures such as Eminem, Howard Stern, or Oprah Winfrey should speak at a church conference, but given the overview of the Humana Conference, this writer thinks some of these figures might fit in perfectly in that setting.--R.A.

----------------------

To All Subcultural Architects: My Modest Proposal

Humana, a conference in Orlando Florida, has come and gone. I understand that it was a great week. Its overview statement mentioned that its purpose was to "create environments that expand imagination and unleash creativity." As I scan some of the names of the keynote speakers, I am dismayed. Who are these people? Sure, I’ve heard of one of the speakers; I’ve reviewed some of his books and he considers himself a "futurist" and "cultural architect." But you can hardly say Erwin McManus has registered much with the overall culture at large. If you put all the people of his Mosaic churches in one big room, how many would that be, 3,000 people? Okay, I’ll spot you his Mosaic Inland, Mosaic New York and Seattle and all the other Mosaics sprouting up on our landscape. How many heads is that total? I’ll be generous: 10,000? That’s a good number for a church but nothing compared to the amount of people who saw "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" last weekend. Total box office: $25 million. His book sales do brisk business in Christian bookstores but he might as well sell books out of his car trunk when you compare him to that cultural phenomenon Mitch Albom. His Tuesdays with Morrie has eleven million copies in print. From this we can conclude that McManus and others like him, such as the speakers at Humana and Origins Los Angeles conference, are not cultural architects but more like subcultural architects. They are not reaching the culture but a culture within the culture: the Christian market. McManus is great at preaching to the choir but what about the unchurched, non-Christian culture? To these, McManus is completely irrelevant. Well, irrelevant is a relative term. Most people have never even heard of him. Larry King is irrelevant. Jean Claude Van Damme is irrelevant. Yes, Erwin is a big fish in a very small pond, indeed. If Humana is going to have any significant and lasting impact in the world it needs to feature real transformers of our culture rather than icons of the subculture. My modest proposal is that we have the architects that unleash "imagination, and creativity" upon our culture come and speak at Humana/Origins. Who are these people? Here is my list. If you want to add to my partial list, feel free to add your comments.
FILM
Zack Snyder (Director) Yes, I realize he’s only made two major features but his "300" was made on the cheap and it did boffo box office. Every studio wants to work with him and his upcoming "Watchmen" is eagerly anticipated. He would be a welcome addition to Humana/Origins because he is such a hip cat.
Jonathan Nolan (Screenwriter) His work includes "Memento," "The Prestige" and the upcoming "Dark Knight." He might not have a great time at Humana, however, because he’s the bookish, "intellectual" type. But he is hot in the industry right now.
TV
Oprah Winfrey(Talk Show Host) You cannot overstate Oprah’s impact on culture. Her recommendation of William Faulkner’s Light in August shot it to the New York Times bestseller list even though the book was written over eighty years ago. Oprah would fit in nicely at Humana.
Rupert Murdoch(CEO) Few believed he could do it, but he has turned his Fox TV channel into a force with monster hits like "American Idol" and "24." He also owns the runaway ratings leader Fox News Channel. His non-TV entities include 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, and My Space. An argument can be made that he is the cultural architect of our day. He may not want to come to Humana but he could bankroll the whole thing.
MUSIC
Eminem (Rap Artist) His "Marshall Mathers LP" and "8Mile" were not only monster hits but a cultural phenomenon that influenced the worlds of music, movies, and even fashion. He might not make such a good choice for a keynote speaker at Humana, though.
U2 (Rock Band) Album after album, they continue to sell. Everything they do goes platinum and they would make a great worship team at Humana.
RADIO
Rush Limbaugh (Talk Show Host) No matter what you think of his politics, he is an absolute giant in his field. He is considered by many as the man who saved AM radio and he spawned a legion of influences that can be heard daily on the radio. He would be a natural speaker at Humana since he is so comfortable behind a mic.
Howard Stern (Talk Show Host) Another huge influence in the world of broadcasting and he even ventured successfully in the worlds of film, books, and TV. He might be reminded of the speech guidelines if he is asked to speak at Humana.
COMPUTERS
Bill Gates (CEO) Enough said.
Steve Jobs (CEO) His company gave us Apple, Pixar, and the Ipod. At Humana, he would feel comfortable with some of the tech-speak, but when talk turns to the "mystic," he’s outta there.

-------------------------------

EdfromBocaRaton said:
No list of cultural architects is complete without the name Steven Spielberg. What were you thinking?

Ruben said:
Ed, I also left off David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks. I didn’t have the temerity to list these in the presence of us mere mortals.

Anonymous said:
I think you’ve misunderstood the ministry of Erwin. He is trying to stir passionate followers of Jesus Christ. Humana is a conference that attempts to awaken those followers to unleash their creative impulses through art, dance, and leadership. Erwin has been a key figure in that movement.

Ruben said:
And you’ve misunderstood my point. We need to get serious about reaching our culture. I’ve provided a list of the very people who are doing so. Erwin and the other keynote speakers at Humana might be important in your cloistered Christian circles but so what? His following is scattered and few compared to the true architects of the day. To say Erwin is a key figure in the movement is like saying the hot dog guy at Dodger stadium is the one garnering all the attention. While it is true that there are ten people clamoring around the guy for a Dodger Dog, 50, 000 people came to watch the real stars: Derek Lowe, Jeff Kent, and Rafael Furcal.

Jenny said:
Your suggestion that Howard Stern speak at Humana is disgusting. Stern is a foul-mouthed ignoramus.

Ruben said:
When Stern signed with Sirius radio he sent shares of their stock skyrocketing. He has millions of loyal listeners. What have you done for the culture lately?

John said:
My pastor Phil Stein teaches us the Bible on Sundays and apologetics on Wednesdays. Though the congregation is small (about fifty members), we owe a deep gratitude to his ministry. He has to supplement his income through odd jobs like maintenance and plumbing. So what if his ministry is "irrelevant" in your eyes? He preaches Christ and Him crucified. That’s what matters.

Ruben said:
Who is this Phil Stein? I’ve never heard of him.

JerrydeCovina said:
You might want to consider I Corinthians, my friend. The word of the cross is foolish to those who are perishing. But it is still the power of God. You are beating your head against the wall if you think the message of the cross is going to impact the culture as a whole the way Oprah Winfrey or Rupert Murdoch has. The church may have created certain inroads into culture in the past with the "The Passion of the Christ" movie and the "Purpose-Driven" book but those are exceptions. The message of Christ will always be unpopular to this secular culture. I have a question for you: where in the Bible does it say we need to impact our culture?

Ruben said:
Um, I’ve run out of time, I must be going…