Ruben's Reviews

Asleep in the Light

2008-08-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Letters, We Get Letters

2007-08-23T02:51:00.000-07:00

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."

Tartuffe

2007-08-07T21:27:00.000-07:00

"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.

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

2007-06-15T01:36:00.000-07:00

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.

The Backward Church

2007-05-01T21:24:00.000-07:00

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?

For Your Consideration…

2007-04-10T00:41:00.000-07:00

..
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.

My Modest Proposal

2007-03-27T20:06:00.000-07:00

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…

Print the Legend

2007-03-19T22:19:00.000-07:00

A Week in Review - (3/18/2007)

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. –from the film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. —James 3:1

It was a bad week for some in leadership at Mosaic but a great week for truth lovers. The truth about the Believing the Impossible campaign was finally revealed: the coffers are dry. First came allegations of abuse of power and doctrine, and now this. Implicit in the BTI campaign was the idea that the money would go toward the purchase of a building in the Los Angeles area. With the benefit of short memories and the exodus of many members from that era, Erwin McManus offers this spin in a profile in Tu Ciudad magazine: "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.’ " Oh, really? None of us got that memo. So if the money hasn’t gone toward a building, where did it go? According to a volunteer staff, the fund was spent in part to buy the facility at Mosaic Inland, which is outside of LA County. But some donors who have expressed great dissatisfaction with Mosaic have received complete refunds on their donations. What gives? No official word yet on why it took nearly ten years to complete this fundraising campaign and how the decision came about to send the money to Mosaic Inland.

I noted here last week that a kind of revisionist history first surfaced in 2004. A reader was unhappy that the revisionism was attributed to Erwin in his interview with the LA Times. But another reporter heard the same thing when she wrote her article on Mosaic and it sounded oddly familiar: "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." Yvonne Martinez has done a great service by chronicling the history of the Church on Brady in her well-researched blog. Perhaps now that the light is shining brighter on this subject it will be much more difficult to spin legends out of whole cloth.

Ken Silva spoke to Mike Corley about the NRB convention. At the convention, Erwin insults the church that invited him to be their pastor. But he does this in a very spiritual, "relevant" way, of course. Those of us who came to Christ under the ministry of Brother Tom Wolf and learned the Bible from him are indebted to the Lord for his ministry. I never once look back and think, "gee, what an irrelevant time!" or, "wow, were we stuck in a 70’s groove!" We were fed and told to make disciples. Period. Christ and Christ alone... Oh well, at least Erwin got his cheap laughs.

Finally, we got treated to this post in the MOP site from a reader named Tim: "There is no place in the church for the anonymous throwing of accusations (Satan is the "accuser of the brethren)." After writing that there’s no room for accusations, he accuses MOP members of being bitter, defiled, spreading falsehoods, and ultimately, questions our Christianity. Well, Timothy, some of us who post here do so in clear conscience and left Mosaic in good terms. It is possible to express valid criticisms of Mosaic and be bitter free. You should be concerned that, to date, Mosaic has not been willing or able to offer a serious rebuttal to the claims of abuse of power, doctrine, and finances. Their attacks on character and phone calls to the police don’t constitute as serious responses. Perhaps it only reveals both a hint of bitterness on their side and a fierce protection of the legend that they are creating.

In Love with Night

2007-03-10T18:29:00.000-08:00

Chasing Daylight, by Erwin McManus
(Previously published as Seizing Your Divine Moment)
Nelson Books, 259 pages

All of us have the capacity to manipulate and must guard ourselves from violating relationships at this level. ---from Chasing Daylight

One of the remarkable things about the ministry of Erwin McManus is how much he has insulated himself from criticism now that the heat has really turned up. Amid criticism of the abuse of power, the man who has exhorted his followers to "choose a more dangerous path" has gone down the path of least resistance. Don't the former leaders who had served faithfully for years under his leadership deserve more than the insults of "volunteer staff" on a blog? Don't they deserve to hear from the man himself? Other questions have recently surfaced. Did the former pastor of Mosaic Pasadena deserve three uninvited guests at his door in the cover of night? There are more: Is it fair to retire a minister who served loyally for twenty-five years? Should said minister be in the mood for a party? Though we wait for answers we remain in the dark. His books don’t answer the specifics but they reveal much. Chasing Daylight reads like greatest hits of all his books: A curt dismissal of most Christian churches? Check. A call to celebrate the importance of the self? We got it here. A reminder from McManus himself of why he is so great? We can accommodate you. A collection of tidy, self-important sayings? But of course.

Chasing Daylight emphasizes the importance of taking hold of opportunities that God has created for you. He uses Jonathan as a prime example of his thesis. The "Pomegranate Dilemma," as he puts it, ignores those calls. His book opens with a clumsy and unfortunate analogy: "Ever heard that voice? It calls you like a temptress to abandon the monotony of life and begin the adventure." The book is chock full of those manufactured sayings you expect from his books: "Somehow we all know that to play it safe is to lose the game." Some are obvious: "human beings are created with the capacity to influence and be influenced," "moments move in a timely manner and time waits for no one." In one passage, he gets caught in strangled logic: "The more you move with God-given urgency, the more God seems to bless your life. The more God blesses your life, the more you have to lose. The more you have to lose, the more you have to risk. The more you have to risk, the higher price of following God." Try wrapping your mind around that one. This, like his other books, is clear in intent, however: Life is full of "opportunities and endless possibilities." Though seizing your divine moment sounds great in theory, there is a lot of talk about the self. McManus writes on page six: "You were born to live a great adventure, you were created with divine destiny." Even though it is to "fulfill a great mission" you can’t help but conclude when reading such passages that McManus places too high a priority on man’s role in God’s mission. I don’t buy it but McManus has his devotees.

Chasing Daylight not only celebrates the self but also McManus. On page fifty-two we are treated to this passage: "I had all of these important programs that would quickly lose momentum as soon as they lacked my attention. Now I have to admit, the church members were wonderful cheerleaders. They would always commend me for all the services that needed to happen. Most of the time when I started a ministry that someone else identified as a need, it would cease to exist the moment I detached from it." It should come as no surprise that he should think so highly of his ministerial gifts, but the egregious error he makes is the dismissal of those who don’t agree with him on worship and ministry. These are stuck on "tradition" and he sees it as his job to bring them forth into the new millennium. I wish he’d put the kibosh on this myth because it is insulting to people who worship with sincere hearts. Perhaps it escapes him that some of us don’t need strobe lights, dancers, and hip-hop routines to get right with God. I do not question the sincerity of those that enjoy those forms of worship. He should show the same consideration. There is another myth that I wish would go away. In an October 9, 2004 interview of McManus by the Los Angeles Times, there is this piece of information: "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." Are there any long-time members at Mosaic who feel even a bit uncomfortable with this history of their church? It is this kind of playing fast and loose with the facts that has contributed to the crisis facing Mosaic today. To rid a beloved former pastor seemed to push the boundaries of loyalty to a new dimension, and yet, the ship held sway. But to imply the church somehow died or ceased to exist nine years ago and a new church emerged from its ashes requires too much of that flock. To read that some of those former members are "nostagics" and "laggards" compounds the problem and rings like the taunts of a serial bully.

On page one hundred seventeen is a moving story about member Dave Auda and a gasoline attendant named Ron that is worth reading. McManus writes, "what may look like an inconvenience might be no less than the beginning of a life-changing opportunity." I couldn’t agree more. When God prompts us to act, we must act. "Those who know the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin," we are told in the book of James. Perhaps our current crisis is one of those times. Isn’t it biblical to answer some of the serious questions now being posed to Mosaic? Is it not also righteous to care for people who are bleeding? Seizing your divine moment, indeed.

Interview - Frank Loaiza

2007-02-22T22:55:00.000-08:00

Why is character important? How have character deficiencies hurt a local church? These are some questions I was pondering recently when I talked to Francisco Loaiza.

Francisco Loaiza has been a Member of the Technical Staff (Systems Administrator) at an Aerospace Company in Pasadena since 1991. He is married and has three children.

What is your connection to Mosaic church--what ministries where you involved in and how long?

I visited the Church on Brady when I was 16 years old, in 1986 through Holly Byrd, (now Holly Hair) and later became a member in 1987. I was a bible study leader and then became a Youth Worker , (1989), in the Youth Ministry and led weekly Bible studies. At MOSAIC, I was a leader in the college ministry. My wife and I decided to leave Mosaic in September 1998.

You have spoken admiringly of the old Church on Brady. Why do you have such strong affection for that church?

It was during my time at The Church on Brady that I really began to understand the scriptures and I was surrounded by people and leadership that really invested in my Christian walk. People like Holly Byrd, Eddie Marshall, Laszlo Veszpellar, Margaret Veszpellar, Dave Mushegan, Bruce Welch, Steve Walker, Clara Welch, Kristin Klindt, etc....These people helped me to understand the scriptures and to apply them to my life. This was a time in my life where I was new to the Lord, I was full of the joy of my newfound salvation. These youth leaders provided opportunities for me to serve others, (Vacation Bible School, and other service projects and mission trips).These were very formative years for me spiritually, and I have many fond memories and close friends that I still communicate with to this day from that time. It was at the Church on Brady where I met my wife to be and at the Church on Brady where we were wed.

Regarding the pastor of Mosaic, are there serious character issues with him? If so, can you provide and example or examples of those character deficiencies?

I think that the main thing I see/saw in Erwin R. McManus is deception. I think he uses deception in various ways to get things done. Here are a couple examples;In 1993 David Arcos invited me to a Bar-B-Que. He told me that Erwin might be at this barbecue, so I asked him where I can meet him. He then proceeded to tell me that he, (David Arcos), would pick me up. He picked me up and we ended up at Erwin's home in Alhambra, (at the time). That threw me for a loop since David had told me that Erwin might be there, and we were parked in front of his home! Before we entered the home for this barbecue, David told me not to bring up any theological questions with Erwin, that this was only to be a relaxed atmosphere "to get to know each other". I complied and we entered the home. Mark Kaprive and Erwin were inside, and nobody else. I thought it was kinda strange for a barbecue... This turned out to be a very exclusive barbecue, indeed... Erwin was fidgeting around with the the grill and I approached him and asked him if there was an issue between he and I... He responded with an adamant YES!. He proceeded to tell me that everytime I meet with him , or talk with him, that I always have a bible question or a deep theological discussion comes up. He just wants to get to know me for who I am and not be confronted with Theological discussions. He also told me that the elders at Brady have already "tested" him on what he believes and that he doesn't need me to check on him as well. I was taken aback. Wow, I thought, this guy is really upset about this. Needless to say, this BarBQue turned out to be a set-up confrontation. Mark Kaprive and Erwin basically spent the rest of the time speaking about Predestination and Erwin began to take apart RC Sproul's belief's on election and being born again. I felt that I was tricked into something..... Example 2:In 1994 Catherine and I were engaged to be married and we wanted to have a bilingual wedding. We wanted to have Bro. Tom Wolf and Erwin do the wedding. We envisioned Bro. Tom doing the English part of the ceremony and Erwin doing translating it to spanish. We approached Bro. Tom and he agreed to do it and we approached Erwin and he said that he doesn't speak good enough Spanish.I asked Erwin that since he was a pastor at a Spanish speaking congregation in the past, (Dallas, TX), that I think he would do well. He said that he cannot speak Spanish well enough. I was confused as to why he didn't want to do it. Several months later,(AUgust 1994), Catherine and I attended a wedding at Brady that Erwin led, and he executed the ceremony in English and was translating the ceremony in Spanish "on the fly". His Spanish was actually pretty good. I could not understand why he didn't want to do my wedding in Spanish. Once again I felt that I was deceived by Erwin....

Did you ever approach leadership with any of your concerns?

Not about these concerns in particular, but I approached the elders about the fact that I felt that Erwin's sermons didn't make sense to me.I also felt that there was not enough discipleship at Mosaic, there was a great emphasis put on evangelism, but not enough discipleship of the evangelized. I have been told that Erwin has quoted me as saying that I said, "Mosaic is too evangelistic" This is simply not true, I never said this. I said that we had an unbalanced emphasis on evangelism and not enough emphasis on discipleship.

Have there been any attempts from Mosaic leadership recently to contact you? If so, did that go well?

No, I have contacted MOSAIC leadership myself and Eric Bryant has written me back several times, but I have yet to hear from Erwin, but I know he is very busy with Speaking engagements around the country.

You have expressed some of your opinions on a website and blog critical of Mosaic. There are those who say that this is an unbiblical way of expressing concerns. Why shouldn't those who have concerns simply approach the leader they had a problem with and then come to some sort of resolution behind closed doors?

Because it is very difficult to meet with Erwin. I think that he hides behind his staff.

Wouldn't this be the best choice given the possibility many unbelievers and new believers have read the blogs and formed an unsavory opinion of the Christian church?

Yes, I agree. In Proverbs 22:1 we read; "A good name is to be more desired than great wealth,Favor is better than silver and gold. "I am so amazed that Erwin has not done anything to restore his good name.

SOUL CANDY

2007-02-11T20:40:00.000-08:00

Soul Cravings by Erwin McManus
Nelson Books, ? Pages

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,
Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains
One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk.
---John Keats, “Ode to a Nightingale”

Those who have been following the recent activities of Mosaic Church in Los Angeles can’t help but feel a profound sense of sadness over the whole matter. Those of us who have been critical of the church are not exempt from this heartache. There is a lingering stink of brokenness: brokenness of fellowship and unity. The brokenness of lives. Regarding the minister who was recently forced to retire, I have not spoken to him in over five years. Then why am I angry about it? Consider the youth pastor and his wife who were fired in a shockingly callous manner at Mosaic Pasadena. I hardly know them. Still, why does the story depress me? I rarely see the former pastor who was dismissed after twenty five years of service. Why does it rankle when I think about it? Not only me, but many former members still express frustration over this event and the way it was clumsily handled by leadership. Perhaps the worst part is that many good congregants had some honest questions about the dismissal that were never answered. Many of these same former members, fueled by a sense of righteous anger, have now asked these same questions on blogs and websites. To add insult to injury, the Mosaic leadership is now branding them with labels: “bitter” seems to be the missive du jour.

Why does the pain linger after so many years? I believe that though broken, the Body remains united by a sense of purpose and justice. Given this backdrop, current and former members of Mosaic might benefit by some context for our current predicament, a document if you will that would guide us through the question “why?” Why did this happen? The books of Erwin McManus are a good start, and thankfully, there are some clues in his latest. Soul Cravings is a feel-good concoction of things you want to hear wrapped in an egocentric worldview. This book goes down like a sweet elixir but, in the end, it leaves you with all the health benefits of hemlock.

This book has no page numbers, so when I quote from it, you’ll have to take my word for it. It’s in there. Somewhere. Soul Cravings is a series of “entries” about McManus’s ideas about love, hope, and meaning. In entry one, McManus writes “we are driven by love, driven to love, and even from love.” In entry two, he writes, “We cannot live unaffected by love.” He also writes, “The more you love someone, the more that person can hurt you.” In the first three entries, which comprise about nine pages, the word “love” appears eighty one times, not counting tenses and variations of the word like “loving,” “loved,” and “loveaholic.” At around the tenth entry, we come to what I think is the thesis of the book: “You are unique and irreplaceable. You are the object of God’s love.” Make no mistake about it, this book is a celebration of the self. “To come to God is to discover the uniqueness of your being.” To many of us, the core of our being at the time of our conversion was not a good thing. We can relate to the tax-gatherer Jesus speaks of who beat his breast asking for mercy for his sinful soul. The being McManus refers to is one with “immeasurable value.” He writes that the “kingdom of heaven is within us” and claims that God’s signs are “all around you but even more the signs are all within you.” This type of doctrine, one can easily conclude, can move people to behave in strange and brutal ways. If truth is that subjective, then why can’t I harm my brethren? After all, God has spoken within me. McManus has gone on record to say he does not build his life on the word of God but on the voice of God, but that he does treasure the scriptures. You can see where that can lead someone. In fact, we have many tragic examples of people who’ve been led by God’s voice but didn’t test that voice with God’s word. Let’s hope this is not the case with McManus or that he at least clarifies what he means by this.

There is another grievous idea that seems to be a running theme in every one of his books. In entry ten, he writes: “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.” I am mystified why McManus and his editors continue to peddle this false dichotomy. It’s as if there is a huge boxing ring, the church is on one side, McManus on the other. The church is screaming, “Repent! Now follow a loveless God and his iron-clad set of rules.” And on the other corner you have McManus saying, “No. God is love.” Where is this church McManus keeps writing about? To be sure, legalistic churches exist but there are numerous evangelical churches that preach a doctrine of love and repentance. Can’t God do two things at once? Must He be either/or?

The second part of Soul Cravings deals with hope and meaning. He writes, “God designed us to dream because he created us to create.” Is that so? Like his church, McManus places a heavy emphasis on creativity and art. It’s a shame he doesn’t deal more with creative ungodly people in this book. This, of course, would lead to problems with his theory that “creativity is the natural result of spirituality.” Lately, he has been saying that “creativity leads to mysticism.” The idea that mysticism has reared its head in Mosaic church is chilling.

He writes extensively about Victor Frankl, a man I have a great deal of admiration for. Frankl survived the Nazi death camps during World War 2 by an unwavering hope. Once hope dies, we die was Frankl’s message, and to be sure, it is a good one. But Frankl also wrote that there are only two races: the decent and the indecent. I was reminded of that quote as I read the passages of Frankl in Soul Cravings. I was reminded of the many decent people posting questions who are now being branded as malcontents and crybabies. Well, there is a lot to cry about. And I also think of the people who haven’t posted but quietly reflect. This is a sad chapter to reopen. But, reluctantly, we open and shine a light on it knowing that healing comes in the morning.

The Writer/The Person

2007-02-06T22:40:00.000-08:00

…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. And the crisis in Bande Ache, we were there days after the crisis. We mobilize within days of a crisis. We take this stuff seriously.
---taken from Erwin McManus interview with INFUZE

Readers of this blog are aware that it is devoted to one thing, and one thing only. The book review in the past century has been accepted as a literary form all its own, from the artistry of H.L. Menken to the present New York Times Book Review. So why not devote an entire blog to a particular writer and his books? I think this writer deserves that kind of focus. Googling the name Erwin McManus gives you the kind of idea of his influence and stature. There is a good possibility that I may broaden the reviews to other writers in the future.
There are some who do not like this site and feel that its purpose is to unleash personal attacks. To those people I point out that it is nearly impossible to separate McManus the writer and McManus the person. A person intimate with Mosaic church cannot help but remember his barbarian, sacking ways when seeing the title “Barbarian Way.” When he describes himself in book jackets and magazine interviews as “cultural architect” and speaks of all the wonderful things Mosaic is doing across the globe, does he not invite criticism as a self-promoter? And when he does all these things while dismissing most other churches, calling them “docile” “domesticated” and “conformists” is it unreasonable for people to feel that he is attacking the church? When he says that “Creativity moves you toward mysticism” is it not fair to say that he seems to be losing his way theologically? When he is asked what book has changed his life and he replies every book, but even more so “every book I have ever written” is it a surprise many sense an arrogance and pride from this man? And perhaps most importantly, when you hear him speak of Mosaic as a “community of faith, love, and hope” the question must be asked: why have many left Mosaic in so much pain?

The Downward Spiral

2007-01-30T23:12:00.000-08:00

Uprising: A Revolution of the Soul

By Erwin McManus
Nelson Books, 260 Pages

Oh, Svengali
Oh Svengali
wide eyes mesmerize
aint he clever
Oh Svengali
---Steve Taylor

This book is dangerous
---Dust jacket blurb on book Uprising: Revolution of the Soul

The opening metaphor in Erwin McManus book Uprising provides a perfect metaphor for the growing concern over the Emergent Church and its aberrant doctrines: a furious river. The abuse of power in leadership, I believe, will be the next phase of concern, at least, in the case of McManus. Watching the growing tide of unrest, spilt over on the blogs, radio shows, and now, the halls of the Southern Baptist Convention, we can see the river McManus writes about that is a "combination of fury and hunger." The book itself hopes to rise downward, but the doctrine he espouses in it set Christianity backward and can ultimately lead it down a cliff crashing on the rocks below.
The problem with this book is both in its content and style. While most of McManus’s books are fairly simple and manageable, Uprising is one of the exceptions. It is a depressing, dreary read. This book is punctuated with assertion after assertion. Add to that, there are more anecdotes and personal histories than perhaps any of his other books. The Bible verses come off as mere conveniences for his many opinions on a variety of subjects, including absolute power, car hunting, Greek mythology, humility, and the Oakland Raiders. Uprising seems more the idiosyncratic musings of McManus than the soul revolution it promises to be. Worse still, McManus weaves his chapters with mundane, clunky prose:

“While an unwillingness to love is an outcome of choice when we are emotional consumers, an unexpected consequence is the inability to experience love.” He writes on wholeness: “…while wholeness is often thought of as a personal reality; its essence is far more communal.” Again on wholeness he writes: “When we are broken, wholeness can seem either elusive or illusory. Our desperate search for it often takes us on a journey to find that which we have ever known.”

When reading such passages, it is difficult to remember his thesis. I found myself reading the dust jacket or scanning the table of contents to remind myself. But even then…what is it? Like the Barbarian Way, and like Oakland, according to Gertrude Stein, there is no there, there. Perhaps, given its subtitle, it is a book about our journey with Christ? Is it a spiritual guide, or in this case, given McManus’s Emergent church bona fides, a self-help book? The book is hard to navigate, but there are some revealing passages. In the opening chapter, there is a sentence that is so astonishing in its obtuseness that I would not be surprised if it is removed from future editions of the book. One of the many ideas that animate McManus is that passion has been quashed in the modern church. He writes:

“Our incessant focus on the elimination of sin has more than contributed to the problem of passionless living.”

Well, there you have it. Now we know what’s wrong with the modern church. We obsess over doing what is right. Later in the paragraph, he writes:

“We’ve been taught that God’s solutions to restraining our passions is His commands. The result has been a Christian religion focused on rules, rituals, and obligations. In this regard Christianity as a religion is essentially no different or better than the other major world religions.”

Those who have been carefully following McManus teachings should not be surprised with such nonsense. This type of theology, a sneaky contempt for spiritual disciplines by calling them “rules” and “rituals” is peddled in The Barbarian Way.
Finally, there is a page in this book that proves instructive when considering McManus not only as writer but as shepherd of a very large flock. There, on page 58, begins the story of an elder dismissed for a petty reason. It was more of a miscommunication than any real charge leveled by the church at this elder. McManus, struck by the seriousness of this elder’s contrition, helped restore this man to the church. The passage makes McManus seem gentle and reasonable. And in fact, he was, at that moment. If only the same could be said of the way he treated the young youth pastor, who was fired along with his wife on account of someone else’s sin, or that elder who was forced to retire after twenty five years of service. And there are others. So many lives…If the dust jacket blurb seems unintentionally funny and appropriate, it is: This book is dangerous. Mr. McManus, we know.

Barbarian at the Gate

2007-01-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

The Barbarian Way
By Erwin McManus
Nelson Books, 148 pages

Ruben Aguilar

Barbary
c.1300, "foreign lands" (especially non-Christian lands," from L. barbarus "barbarous" (see barbarian). Meaning "Saracens living in coastal North Africa" is attested from 1596, via Fr. (O.Fr. Barbarie), from Arabic Barbar, Berber, ancient Arabic name for the inhabitants of N.Africa beyond Egypt. Perhaps a native Arabic word, from barbara "to babble confusedly," which may be ult. from Gk. barbaria (see barbarian)

Given Erwin McManus’s reputation for sacking dedicated leaders of his Mosaic church, some of his most wounded flock may have been given to ironic chuckles when first learning of his 2005 title: The Barbarian Way. To see the carnage left in McManus wake reminds one of Tom and Daisy, the fictional characters in The Great Gatsby who F. Scott Fitzgerald tells us were “careless and smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” Former employees, youth workers, pastors, and members may be forgiven for experiencing a bit of déjà vu when reading this book. Its thesis, tone, philosophy, and theology are very much like the man: earnest but hollow, passionate but cranky, ambitious and yet, ultimately, aimless.

One of the many frustrating things about the Emergent church movement and their leaders is their penchant for modifying language and definitions to suit their purposes. To most people, a barbarian is a marauder, a thieving non-Christian given to rage and reckless abandon. To McManus, it is a true Christ-follower. To most evangelicals, mysticism is an aberrant doctrine dealing with the direct union of the soul with God through contemplation. To McManus, it is a unique and transcendent connection to the Creator of the universe. McManus’s thesis is clear right away: to be a good Christian is to be an uncivilized Christian. What does this mean exactly? I don’t know if McManus is entirely sure himself. On page thirteen we are told that the barbarian way is “about love, intimacy, passion, and sacrifice.” Even if we were to accept his definition of barbarian, what right-thinking Christian would deny the importance of these qualities? What evangelical group is warring against the movement of love and sacrifice? If Erwin knows, he isn’t telling. On page thirty five he tells us the barbarian life is filled with uncertainty, mystery, and risk. Well, whose isn’t? Taking risks seems to be a high priority with McManus and he goes to great pain to warn that to be in God’s hands is not safe: “It is a path filled with uncertainty and unlimited possibilities.” How exactly does one achieve that one can only guess. There is no real substance here only empty platitudes. We are told to have an “untamed faith,” to be an “innovator,” to possess a “dangerous mind,” to live a “primal” life. But what does that mean? How does one know if he is living the barbarian life and not one devoted to his own pleasures? McManus draws a list of unnamed members of his church who have chosen vocations all over the world as varied as doctor, film editor, fashion designer, chef, and psychologist. The lesson to be learned by this is that these members decided to “pursue the dreams that were waiting to be realized.” So how is this relevant to living a godly life? And what makes this kind of positive thinking much different than say, an Anthony Robbins or Ken Blanchard? There are long passages quoted from the life of John the Baptist which are fine but the question remains: how should we then live? McManus doesn’t bother with the details. He later offers a story about a rebellious friend who refused to return to God unless it snowed. McManus fervent prayer and faith prove him to be a true barbarian in this passage. Fine. But there are plenty of Christians with similar faith and devotion to God. What exactly is so different about this kind of faith, this uncivilized form? And why does he feel the need to brand Christianity in general as a “religion of conformists?” It is just one of the many assertions in this misguided book.

The McManus in Barbarian Way has a cranky contempt for rituals: “The Christian civilization is held together by rules and rituals; the barbarian revolt is fueled by the passion of God and guided by the mission of God.” It is a curious passage from a pastor who regularly encourages baptism, tithing, and the Lord’s Supper. He doesn’t like the word “Christian.” He prefers Christ follower. He discourages Christian parents to teach their boys to be gentlemen. They instead ought to teach them to be barbarians. He seems to prefer “conversation with God” over “prayer.” Some of the differences would seem petty if it weren’t for the fact that McManus has stated that one of the biggest threats to the cause of Christ is Christianity. Some in the Emergent Church movement seem alienated from the traditional church and would like nothing better to strip some of the timeless traditions one by one. McManus is at the forefront of this movement. Ironically, in his attempt to attack the traditional church, he is hearkening back to an old-style Gnosticism. His latest book, Soul Cravings, celebrates the idea of finding God within oneself. This shouldn’t surprise anyone closely reading Barbarian Way. At almost every step of the way, the book winds its way back to the incomparable, all-important me. The book seems to be one long yelp for self-fulfillment. The book jacket cries out: Unleash the Untamed Faith Within. There are no verses about the faith coming from hearing and hearing from the word of God. There is not much here for the mature Christian . You should just heed the mantra: be a barbarian. Be uncivilized. Everything else will take care of itself.

For the new Christian, there isn’t much to see here. Like his other books, McManus relies on the slogan, the catch-phrase, the counter-intuitive buzz-word to stir up a frenzy. In this case, it is “barbarian.” Like his claim that Christianity is the biggest threat to the cause of Christ, it is designed to attract attention and conversation. And it does. In a recent poll, McManus was ranked high in the list of most influential Christians. His book and tape sales have racked up good sales, his lecture schedule is always booked, and his church has seen a great expansion in the past six years. Tragically, the barbarian is no longer at the gate. He was invited in long ago.