Mad at Howard Dean for this one!

The following words come from The Drudge Report's Flash News, which will change quickly of course. For now you can find the link here.

This is what makes me so mad. Howard Dean is saying that Rudolph Giuliani's private life is a serious problem for him politically. Then when asked to be specific he says, "No, I'm not going to get into that stuff. I don't like attacking people on their personal lives...."

Excuse me!? What the heck do you call this, Mr. Dean? I have felt the sting of false allegations, and/or exaggerated claims by politically motivated people, who are suave enough to make it sound like they really are filled with integrity, and kindness, when in fact they are cruel, and self-serving. This smacks of sickening politics.

Sorry to get political on you, here on my blog, but this frosted my dome tonight! So read below, and let me know how you feel.


DNC Dean Says Giuliani's 'Personal Life Is A Serious Problem'
Fri Apr 27 2007 09:37:49 ET

Democratic party chairman Howard Dean said on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani "personal life is a serious problem."

Dean sent the warning on CNN's SITUATION ROOM with host Wolf Blitzer.

Chariman Dean said the former New York City Mayor "has a lot of character issues that he has to answer for. And overwhelmingly, Americans are going to vote on honesty and integrity.... We've begun to reach out to evangelical Christians, and that's a real problem for him. His personal life is a serious problem for him."

BLITZER: Well, describe those character issues...

DEAN: No, I'm not going to get into that stuff. I don't like attacking people on their personal lives, but I can assure you that in the Republican primary, given what went on in the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina between George Bush and John McCain, those attacks will be made in the Republican Party.

Developing...

Yeah, this will be developing, and hopefully I will not be developing anger issues.

One More Reason Tea Rules

Yes, that dark evil brew coffee was birthed in heart of the devil, but tea is the nectar of angels. Another piece of evidence that tea is cool comes from this BBC article.

Join me in the tea revolution! It's time to take back the leaves from the British who overtaxed us.

Feet, Hands, Kisses and Living Hilariously

Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee's house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, "This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner." (Luke 7:36-39)

Jesus is having dinner with the Pharisees. While at this religious leader's home, the unthinkable happens. A woman of sinful reputation begins to wash his feet with her tears, wipe fragant ointment over his feet, and even kiss his feet. Now the owner of the home in which Jesus is a guest finds this behavior unimaginably repulsive. Doesn't Jesus know this woman is a person of bad reputation? A sinner? Doesn't he realize that he is allowing this sinful woman to make an embarrassing spectical here in the Pharisee's own home? Perhaps Jesus would have been well advised to tell this woman to go her way, and give thanks to God in a traditionally acceptable manner. Something like a sacrifice at the temple, or sharing the good news of her thankfulness for forgiveness with all her friends might be a more acceptable manner to show appreciation, but this - this looks she and Jesus must have a "thing" going on. After all, word will get around, and no doubt someone will even write it down for all posterity.

How is it that Jesus allowed the dinner at the respected leaders house to turn into a controversial interaction with a woman with a bad reputation?

I know about such moments. I have lived them, and I have experienced the weight of religious repulsion, and judgment which comes from such moments. The genesis of all our denominational trouble last year was tied to a picture with me greeting a B Horror Movie actress who played a voluptuous Vampiress. I did not not know the photos were on the internet, or had forgotten, or something. They were taken at an innocent moment, when I greeted the actress as she strolled the streets of Salem in full costume, with some of my Pagan friends in town. I was working on our outdoor stage, and saw them pass by. I jumped off the stage, and greeted her as I would anyone in full Victorian regalia. She held out her hand, I took it, and said, "Good to meet you Countess." I bowed to kiss her hand, but only did a mock version, and never actually kissed her hand, or her large spider ring. Someone snapped a few photos. I said, "Now don't you get me in trouble with that," and I ran off to get back to work. The innocent 2 minute interaction was witnessed by Diane, one of our church council members at the time.

Perhaps I should have considered the possible ramifications of treating an actress with a "reputation" in such a familiar manner. What if someone thought we had a "thing?" What if word got aroound? What if it would be written down for all the world to see?

Oh dang, it did get around - the whole world did hear about it. It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, but even before that, it made the District office, and the denominational headquarters, and they decided to remove me from the denomination - without really checking on the issue sufficiently. Instead they took the word the Pharisees who said I was a compromiser.

Well, even some people who have sided with me have thought that this moment was somehow my undoing, and must have therefore also been my fault. I wonder why Jesus did not stop the woman who kissed his feet? Of course, 2,000 years later we extol the foresight of Christ who allowed the moment to occur, and saw that it taught a lesson about the judgmentalism of the Pharisees, and the compassion of Christ.

I am not sure if the moment were to present itself again that I might not do the same. The playful silliness of Halloween in Salem provides the opportunity to create moments of acceptance in the interactions which occur. Perhaps I am the only Evangelical Christian Pastor to ever be comfortable enough around the Countess Bathoria to greet her hilariously, and to tell her that I was pleased to make her acquaintance. Even that falls far short of allowing her to kiss my feet at a public meal with the District Supervisor present - as Jesus did.

I had not written about this moment with any thoughtfulness until now. It was the words of friend, who mentioned this moment and felt comfortable enough to tell me that he wished this moment never occurred, which has caused me think on it a year and a half after it made trouble for me. I know it was my friend's gentle way of saying that the careless moment was in error.

Sure, the moment was careless, but I wonder if careless is sometimes the way to live. Jesus appeared careless. He could have cared less what the Pharisee thought, even while eating dinner at his house. He could have cared less that the story would make the headlines in human history. He lived carelessly toward the Pharisees, and caringly toward the woman. He lived hilariously, and I hope to someday to live as hilariously, and carelessly as He does.

My friendships with the Pagan community have grown exponentially in the last few months. I am sure that photo ops will present themselves in the future, and I will look like I am living carelessly among people whom the Christian community thinks are people of bad reputation. Yet I hope that I will be walking the path of Jesus: living hilariously among those He (and myself) loves.

Finding Grace in Those So Different Than Ourselves

This is a picture of a kissing gate. I may have passed through this same gate with my wife on a walk through Wales about 4 years ago around this same time. It is called a kissing gate, because only one person can pass through at a time, and the man can demand a kiss before letting the girl pass through. Somehow it reminds me of the interactions of fellowship which randomly occur in life. We have our moments of passing into true fellowship, and they surprise us like the demand of a kiss at the kissing gate.

Some of the recent interactions of deeper connection, and grace have occured with people whom I might not have expected such freedom of relationship (if I were thinking like a typical Evangelical): a gay Pagan man whom I knew did not quite trust me but somehow we came to new appreciation of one another, an Occultist with a tough exterior who showed a gentle heart which surprised me, a middle-aged female Witch whose seeking led her to spend all afternoon asking about our church, an extremely liberal female pastor with a foot in cast and heart for mission, a liberal pastor whose primary interest was saving the planet, and an evangelical pastor who played 40 questions with my life and made it feel like a game between friends.

I wonder if Jesus found comfort spending time with people who were remarkably different from Himself? He speaks of His discussion with the Samaritan woman, and says, "I have food to eat of which you do not know." Was there something about that interaction which fed His soul? Did he find the dialogue comforting like a good meal with friends? Or should I assume that He was fed merely by the fact that He served God? Was there no satisfaction in the relational interaction with the woman at the well?

This Samaritan woman wasn't a well studied theologian, or a deeply prayed-up disciple. She was a common sinner - a spiritual ragamuffin. She was a seeker, but a clumsy one at best.

I have been finding myself less comforted by those who speak the typical language of the churched, and more drawn to and "fed" by those who question church as we know it today, and so I ask myself this question: Am I sensing the "food to eat of which you do not know" as Jesus spoke of it, or is something else going on in my heart?

Having to forge new relationships is the nature of the season I am living in, and strangely, ministers whose theology is dramatically different than my own, and seekers whose ideas of religion are only remotely similar to my own at best often offer a deeper refreshing than preachers whose theologies are most like mine. Does this mean I am finding new food for the soul? I am not sure, but it's worth a thought. What do you think? Can we find refreshing in mission itself?

Phil's Confessio (Part 4)

As the fourth part in a continuing series, you can follow the first 3 parts: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

A Grand Opening Surprise

March 19th came, and we held a grand opening of our new facility. A morning service, followed by an invitation to friends and acquaintances in the community to visit our space throughout the day, as live music, food, and free Dream Interpretation was being offered. In the evening we had a Storyteller's event, with a friend who played the bassoon in an orchestra who performed solo, and an another friend who was a recently celebrated local poet.

This was billed as the grand opening of The Vault - the new home of The Gathering - The Salem [denominational title here] Church. All over town invitations had been given out highlighting this opening with the denomination's name upon it.

The mayor attended the morning service, and celebrated our Grand Opening with us. Our friends from Streams Ministries came to support us, and provide the Dream Interpretation following the service. The service was attended by a few new faces, but disappointingly few for all our work, but shortly after the service that all changed. People began to pour into The Vault from noon until 5pm. Friends, city employees, friends of church members, neighbors, local business people all came to check out the new place. They laughed, they ate, they listened to live music performed by a variety of friends who came to support us with their skills. Kids ran around, people walked through the old vault. They played chess, and checkers, and had dreams interpreted. All afternoon the fun went on. As it wore down at about the 6pm, the room filled again. The lights went low. and Storytellers began. It was a magical evening, and the day which started so slowly, ended wonderfully. We laughed with friends, developed new relationships, and spoke gracefully of Jesus to the community.

Certifiable Insanity

We rested that week from the hard work which led to the success of our grand opening. To our surprise we had not had any response from the people in our own denomination. Invitations were sent to all the churches in the District, and to friends out and beyond as well. Distant friends wrote congratulations, and wished they could be present. Two of the nearby churches responded. Both regretted their inability to attend and wished us well. Not one person in leadership in the denomination either responded or attended. It had seemed that we were not on their radar screen - forgotten, ignored, or treated as wicked step-children who were expected to been seen and not heard.

Five days after our Open House I discovered why were ignored by our own denominational family. It came in the form a certified letter. On the 24th of March I was notified that our church, The Gathering, no longer held status in the denomination, and that my ordination had been removed.

The absurdity of this action was unbelievable on at least two counts: 1) This had required an action by the National Board, which took place while I was appealing actions taken by our District Supervisor. The action was taken without notifying me that the issue was before the Board, and without allowing my voice to be heard. We were removed without warning, or representation. 2) We held our grand opening on the 19th of March publicizing the local church with its denominational title, and now on the 24th of March I was notified that the Board decision had been handed down on the 8th of March and had been effective immediately. The day we held our Grand opening we were not members of the denomination, and we did not even know that this was the case!

No one in the denomination had the integrity, or courage to inform us that were being removed from the denomination. After over 20 years of service, I was dropped with a cold certified letter, ending in the sick, self-righteous sign-off "blessings."

Phil's Confessio (Part 3)

This is the continuing story. You can catch up by reading Part 1 and Part 2.

Is This What is Called a Appeal?

Immediately I prepared a written appeal. I sent it by e-mail, and I sent it by post. With my hard copy letter, I included our nearly 60 page defense of our ministry, and responses to the false allegations.

I received a quick reply that the Senior Supervisor was away on a family emergency, and would not return for another 3-4 days.

During these few days the District Supervisor was pressing me to hold a meeting with the District leaders he wanted to send to speak to me about my "future in the Salem [denominational title here] Church." Since an appeal to his actions was in process, I stalled setting a time for the meeting.

When I finally received a response from the Senior Supervisor in Pennsylvania, he reprimanded me for making serious accusations against the District Supervisor, and said that his position was one of supporting the decisions of the District Supervisor. I had been told by denomination's Vice President and CFO that the Senior Supervisor was the person to whom I should appeal to for my troubles with my own Supervisor, and now the same Senior Supervisor had alerted me that his only position was to defend the actions of the District Supervisors under him.

Some years previous I had heard that theatening a lawsuit was the only way to get the denomination to listen in such cases as I was facing, and rather than listen they would simply back down. I chose to believe that the higher road of relational interaction, and allowing the church to be its own court was the more honorable path, but I would soon discover that the honorable path in the eyes of God would not be honored by the men who claimed to follow Him.

The Senior Supervisor left me one narrow opportunity to have a face to face discussion with the District Leadership on equal terms. The District Supervisor wanted to send two District representatives to talk to me about my "future in the Salem [denomination title here] Church." His superior the Senior District Supervisor told me that I would have the opportunity to voice my concerns about the process which we had been abused by, and the false allegations against us.

The District Supervisor instead was insisting that I would be corrected and forced to follow some strict guidelines of correction for our "aberrant" ways.

When I held my ground, and referred back the Senior Supervisor's words who reassured me that this meeting was intended for us to voice our concerns, I stated that any further corrections would simply be error piled upon error unless we first discussed the original allegations, and what we viewed as abusive methods of correction. Based on this correspondence the District Supervisor cancelled the meeting, and it would be two months before we heard from anyone in denominational authority concerning our appeal.

Harald Bredesen Calls the President's Home

During our uncomfortable wait I received a call from my buddy Steve. Steve was at Harald Bredesen's home. Harald had heard about our dilemma, and having been to our church, and having seen my ministry in action periodically over the course of 22 years, Harald knew that the charges against us were insane.

Steve put Harald on the phone. It was always a pleasure to talk with Harald. Harald was a legend in the Charismatic movement, and had been a catalyst for many large ministries. He spoke with kings, and presidents over the course of his life, and now in his late eighties was still wildly active in ministry. No matter who you were Harald made you feel like a king.

The three of us: Steve Maddox, Harald and myself were on the phone. Harald called to tell me that he had put in a good word for me. He described a message he left on the home phone of the President of our denomination, who also happened to be a friend of his. His words to the denominational President were gracious, yet at the same time strong. His words were this, "If you allow this young man to be rairoaded out of the denomination it will be a black mark on [insert denominational name here]." As he described his actions in my defense, he raised his voice, as he always did when he got excited, and said, "I am so honored to come to your defense!"

Harald honored!? No I was honored I said, but he repeated his words as loudly as before, "I am so honored to defend you my brother!"

Harald was not the only nationally recognized leader who came to our defense, and personally called the President of the denomination. I would like to say that it had some effect, and at the very least allowed our situation to be reviewed, and judged in the light of fuller evidence, but we would not hear from anyone in denominational authority for almost two months after we appealed above our District Supervisor to the Senior Supervisor in Pennsylvania.

When Job Becomes Our Hero

After a few years of dramatically difficult events one can only wonder if a Jobian season is occuring. I do not want to live Job's life out, but he is nonetheless a hero of the faith beyond which I can comprehend modeling. Yet it is my hope in all our struggles to do so.

Phil's Confessio (Part 2)

The Threat of Removal, and Counsel from the Counsellors and a VP

After our District Supervisor exploded in anger, and feigned spiritual insight by declaring that "something deeper was going on here," I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and took it at face value when he said that he was only a phone call or e-mail away. Perhaps he was just a hothead (okay even his closest confidants said he was a hothead, so I knew that was true) but perhaps he would cool down, and he meant it when he said that we could talk. I sent an e-mail requesting to get together to be able to discuss how we had been offended by being accused of being aberrant in theology and practices, having that information e-mailed around the denomination, never a retraction given when we proved our case, and this on top of the fact that we were never even approached with a discussion of the issues with which we falsely charged. It all had come out of the blue, and we were seeking reconciliation with our detractors.

I asked for a meeting, but stated that I would be talking about how the manner in which we were treated was in error, and that there was a need to begin to work toward solving the problems it had caused us. I even went so far as to say that I was open to hearing how the District Supervisor's position might have been the only option he had, and if so, I was willing to accept that.

I hit send. As the e-mail made its way across the optic fibres, and telephone lines to the District office, I stood up, walked away from the computer into the kitchen, and a voice in my head said, "I'm gonna take him out." The words felt like the words of my District Supervisor. They did not have a New England accent. They did not carry tone and volume, but appeared to carry a meter, and an emotional intent which I identified with the person who would be receiving my letter. I shook off the words as feelings of trepidation in pursuing this sensitive subject once again.

Had I made a mistake in pursuing to rectify this injustice against us? Was God actually calling me to suck it up, and allow lies to continue unabated? or was I called to walk this two-fold path of defending our ministry, and simultaneously pursue reconciliation. Along the way Jeff and I had felt that each step of the way our hand was being forced to speak up, but we never were comfortable with doing so.

The next day, I received a terse reply saying that I was unrepentant. Unrepentant concerning false allegations?! Yikes! How does one defend themselves against such a silly accusation? The reply stated that there would be no meeting with my District Supervisor. I was informed that two leaders would be sent to speak to me about my "future with the Salem Foursquare Church." To me this read like a threat, and seemed to mirror the voice in my head which stated "I'm gonna take him out."

I forwarded the e-mail to a denominational counselor with whom I had asked for advice every step of the way. The moment he read the e-mail, he called me - off hours, from home, and with urgency in his voice. He had never contacted me in this manner previously. His short almost immediate response was, "Phil, whatever you are going to do - do it now." He read the letter in the same manner which I had understood it. The District Supervisor was going to attempt to remove me from the church, because I wanted to talk to him about how we had been offended. As much as we had previously been through, I was still surprised at this response. I could not believe the depth of insecurity, and abuse to which this leader had sunk.

Shortly after I spoke with the denominational counsellor, I also communicated with a denominational Vice President whom I had known for over twenty years, albeit more like an close aquaintance than a friend. I was sure that he was a man of integrity, and someone I could trust. He advised me to appeal our situation to a Senior Supervisor.

And so a new stage of our trials had begun. We were now in need of appealing to higher authorities, and we would discover who up there, like God, had an ear for those without an advocate.

Whose Fault Is It?

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”"

When we are surrounded by difficulties, we often struggle with placing blame for our calamities at the feet of some karmic consequence, or the negative response of sowing the bad seeds of bad intentions. Often we blame our sinful condition, or our heritage for our bad luck in life. Jesus appears to negate the belief that everything negative we experience is somehow tied to something wrong within us.

Over a milennia after the Book of Job was written, and the disciples still hadn’t learned it’s lessons of not automatically placing blame upon the victims of calamity.

I spoke with an old friend. Well, we actually came to the conclusion that I considered him in more friendly terms that he thought of me during this conversation. Although we had not spoken in a long, long time, and he was speaking with me for the first time since hearing of the death of Bev's mom, and an impending kidney transplant for our only son, and our excommuncation, he preceded to speak mostly about the troubles we had with the denomination, and tell stories of how God uses the people who abuse us to show us lessons about how we are just like the abusers we face. God brings these things upon us to teach us these lessons and bring us to repentance.

I could not help but think that this was so much like the false assumptions of Job's friends, and Jesus' disciples. The teaching that says we bring all our own calamities upon ourselves, or that we God uses people who are dishonest to show us that we are dishonest, and those who are abusive to show us that we are abusive seems to be a popular variation of an old heresy - so methinks.

What do you think?

Dw i'n Casau Coffi! and now I have proof it's a bogus drink!

I have always hated coffee. One of the first phrases one learns in Welsh is unfortunately connected to this evil tasting brew. "Dw i'n hoffi coffi," is a phrase found on the lips of every Welsh learner, but I learned to say "Dw i'n casau coffi," instead.

Well here's further evidence from a study in the UK by the British Nutrition Association, which tells us that coffee does not provide the morning pick-me-up you though it did. Instead you might be simply experiencing relief from your addiction's withdrawals. Isn't that encouraging? - all ye who have been seduced by the great Seattle deception. Of course, the British Coffee Association intelligently replied, ""There are two sides to the debate and a wealth of scientific evidence suggests that moderate coffee consumption of four to five cups per day is perfectly safe...." Yep, you could see that one coming a hundred hectares of coffee plants away.

Coffee Haters unite against the insidious brown bean water, and learn the mantra -"Dw i'n casau coffi!" Pronounced - "dween casai coffee."

Phil's Confessio (Part 1)

There has been enough press, and blogging covering my story since October, and it is not finished yet. Coming out soon will be a story in the Christian Research Journal, and that will most likely draw a few readers, and interested parties not previously reached by the Wall Street Journal, numerous local papers, blog interviews, and articles I've written. In the next few days I will unleashing numerous press releases, and information about our rather fun, and edgy Conference entitled God for People Who Hate Church. This too may attract some attention. So, a bit of defense against the party line which has been spread, and the not so subtle lies which have pervaded certain ear waves is in order. If nothing is written in response to the press which has been coming our way, then this will at least suffice to answer rumors falsely charged to myself, and our church.

A defense of faith, and of one's ministry is not a new thing. Some of Christianity's more famous writings have held this same theme. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, and sections of his letter to the Galatians carry this theme. One of the few writings we have from Saint Patrick addresses this same issue, as he defends his faith in his "Confession." In the spirit of desiring better for the Church of the Jesus Whom I love and serve, and in the love for those who follow us toward a simple, and free model of our Christian faith I offer this defense.

Much has already been written about our story, and we have been beneficently portrayed by Suzanne Sataline of the Wall Street, and Tom Dalton of the Salem News, John Smulo, and most recently Pam Hogeweide at Jim Henderson's Doable Evangelism.

This defense goes beyond the story of silly and superstitious accusations of being corrupted by the friendships we have developed with Witches and assorted Neo-Pagans, and looks at the corporate statements made by our former denomination about being rebellious, refusing to submit to correction, or causing trouble. The denomination will remain unnamed unless they should choose to make public statements in response to our growing press. The possibility of response from them is still out there. I have been told that a spokesman for their headquarters has said as much to reporters who have covered our story. If such should occur both the denomination will be named (which is not difficult to find anyway, since the press has already pursued this story), and individual leaders will be named as well.

Because we know that we have been, and will continue to be portrayed as unsubmissive rebels, I will rehearse the story which has to do with these particular false assertions, beyond the accusations of aberrance, and show that we were fully cooperative with all expectations by our leadership, and simply desired to see our good name cleared of false accusations, as well as hoping for relational integrity by our Christian leaders, and the restoration which comes with that integrity. What we got instead was stonewalling, deaf ears in our appeals up the denominational ladder, and evidence of a poorly run non-profit corporate structure which was as self-serving as any for-profit corporation.

So the defense begins here...and will be told in a number of posts.

THE WITCH HUNT HAS BEEN TOLD ALREADY

Our story of being falsely accused by a superstitious leadership has been told already, and can be found at the following locations: Next Wave, The Wall Street Journal Article, and The Salem News. It is a story of being suddenly, and without warning falsely accused of aberrant teachings and practices from leadership who only weeks earlier praised us for our creativity in outreach, and had never visited us, nor spoken to us about their accusations.

We defended our ministry, our doctrine, and our practices proving that there was no evidence of aberrance. From stories of kissing a ring, to accusations about our website we proved ourselves to have been above reproach, yet the leadership maintained that we deserved discipline and strict oversight. On October 18, 2005 we left a Diistrict Council meeting having been questioned, accused, and at times derided for 3 hours. We were given a few empty corrections, which were things we already had done, or regularly practiced. Our accusers made no attempt to correct the falsehoods which they freely spread around our denominational leadership, and we remained under this condition for three months.

THE UNTOUCHABLES

In early February 2006 Jeff Menasco and I were at a District Missions Conference presenting our outreach concepts in the exhibit hall. During the evening, we came face to face with the District Supervisor who had been our accuser. He greeted me, and asked how I was doing. I stated that we were not doing well. Not being a good liar, I do not present a false face easily as some men might, and so I simply tell how I really feel.

"What's going on?" he asked.

"Well, we are still hurting over that meeting a couple months ago, and the way we were treated." I responded.

"What meeting?" His wife asked with surprise.

At this point I was incredulous, and looked at her in wonder, "The meeting back in October." Pausing in disbelief I breathed a little deeper than usual and said, "We do not treat people like that in our church, and I can not ask my wife to come to gatherings such as this one after all we have been through."

At this point the District Supervisor told me that he had a phone, and e-mail, and was available any time. I thought to myself, "Yeah right, aren't you the same guy who said a couple months ago that the issue was not up for discussion?"

At this point Jeff entered the conversation. The District Supervisor, and his wife said that this was not the place for the discussion, and we fully agreed, yet they preceded to pontificate telling me that I was stuck in the past, that I was allowing this to define me, along with numerous other psuedo-psychological observations. I calmly asked a few questions, because their communication was unclear, and the District Supervisor became upset, "I think that I'm making perfect sense!"

After they continued for a few more minutes, Jeff said, "Can I ask a question?"

"Sure. Go ahead."

"You said that this was not the place to discuss this, and we certainly agree, but you have gone ahead, and mentioned a number of things to which we would like to respond. We can discuss this here if you like, but I don't think this is something either of us wants."

At this point the District Supervisor leaned very close to Jeff's face, "I did not invite you into this discussion!"

I responded quickly, having seen Jeff treated poorly during our previous inquisition, "Do not speak to him like that! He has been a part of this since the beginning."

The District Supervisor grew visibly upset, clenched his fists, and started pacing like a prize fighter. His wife held his arm to try and keep his anger down, he said, "There's something deeper going on here!" They stormed off with those last sickly threatening words.

Is it possible that the phrase "touch not the Lord's anointed" so often quoted in Pentecostal circles is really just an excuse for control freaks to get their way without question? We think so.

We also are convinced that a corporate model for denominational, and local church life is destructive to the kingdom of God if it refuses to bow first to the relational/familial patterns found in God's Kingdom. I believe that anytime a leader becomes untouchable he ought to be considered a cult leader, and unfit for serving Jesus.

Rat-a-Tattoo

I've never wanted a tatoo before, but Carlos almost makes me want to get one. Maybe it's because he got a tatoo I really identify with, or perhaps it is because his tatoo is such a wonderful affirmation to me. Maybe because he is the only Aruban in the world with Jesus Christ tatoooed in Welsh on his forearm, and I feel like I should get some Welsh tats. Maybe I'm simply becoming more of a rebel, and I've decided it's time for the revolution to begin.

There is something to be said for creating a tribal identification with life changing groups, and experiences. That is what Carlos did with the Celtic Cross up on the wall of The Vault.

Carlos got the tatoo, because he identified with the mission and message of The Gathering, and has been experiencing some signifacnt change in his relationship with God. The tatoo was like a rite of passage, and it has a tribal indentification.

see Carlos' Tatoo here.

The Nervous Rebel

So, I've got this conference we will be promoting fast and furious real soon. In about 70 days, we've got a big show to put on, and we've got friends, and fames travelling from other places to speak, and the conference is another pushing the edges kind of thing. We've named it "God for People Who Hate Church." Some people love the name and the idea of the conference, others are freaked by the word "hate."

As a new endeavor, and something bigger than we've done before I am quite nervous. As an event which challenges the way, and the spirit in which we do church, I am happy to be a part of it, and all the more nervous as well. As someone who typically hates Christian conferences - for leaders especially (because they never treat leaders like leaders - they only set up talking heads, and ignore people who might have far more to say), I am fearful of setting up another silly talking heads event - oh Lord save me from that - Please!

So once again, as has been the model of my life - I am the nervous rebel.

How Heretical I Really Am!

Okay, I took another one of those inaccurate online tests, and it is supposed to tell me if I am a heretic. Maybe this one isn't so bad. Fist it says I'm not really a heretic. Second, it says that the heretic I am closest to is Pelagius. Woo-hoo! I am like a Welsh heretic who sought to define freedom for Christianity. Okay, that's kind of cool.

So here's the test results:

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 83% Pelagianism 58% Nestorianism 50% Monophysitism 50% Donatism 25% Apollanarian 25% Modalism 8% Monarchianism 8% Adoptionist 0% Arianism 0% Gnosticism 0% Albigensianism 0% Socinianism 0% Docetism 0% Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com

Apologies at JohnSmulo.com

Occasionally a blog post will significantly stop me, and make me ponder deeper things in life. This simple post about an apology on John Smulo's blog is mundanely profound, and stopped me for about 10 minutes this morning.

Please read it. It is short. But then be sure to comment in a manner specifically significant to your own life.

I have discovered the power of the apology can be life changing.

Redefining Heresy (Part 2): Augustine Sets the Standard

A quintessential pursuit of heresy occurred in the 4th and 5th century. Today those old battle lines are discussed and dissected from seminary pulpits. The heretic has few writings, not because he did not write, but because they were destroyed by his detractors. The hero on the other hand is still commonly quoted, and republished today. All we know of the heretic is his name, a little history, perhaps a few brief writings, and his effective defenses against the accusations.

His name is defamed as a great heretic in Christian history, but not because we know what he taught, but because of who accused him, and what they said about what he taught.

Augustine is remembered as the hero, and Pelagius the heretic, and the methods of the pursuit of a heretic has been outlined for us down through the ages on the basis if this story.

Pelagius came from Britain (perhaps from Wales) to Rome, and saw rampant immorality, and even a laxity of morality in the Roman church. He came as a moralist. He perceived the teachings of Augustine on the nature of sin and grace to be detrimental toward encouraging holiness. At some point in the interactions Augustine responded by accusing Pelagius of heresy, and with his influence, and that of others had Pelagius brought before councils on heresy charges. Over the years, two ecclesiastical synods, two popes, as many as thirty-two bishops and many influential Christians found nothing wrong with Pelagius' teachings.

There is evidence that many of the anti-pelagian writings of the church fathers quote Pelagius and make a variety of arguments against points which it is unlikely that Pelagius intended.

Jerome refers to Pelagius as "the huge bloated Alpine dog" who must be "battered with the club of the spirit."

Even after being exonerated many times, Augustine, Jerome, and others kept pursuing some final verdict of Heresy.

Was Pelagius a heretic, or simply a reformer who considered the teachings of the more influential Augustine to be detrimental to a practical life of holiness, and thereby was aggressively pursued unjustly? We can not be sure, but this we do know: He was not pursued on his lifestyle, because Augustine remarked on his piety. He could never really be clearly pinned down on teaching heresy, and that is why he was repeatedly exonerated.

Could it be that the accusations which fly today, often for misunderstanding, and exaggeration, and mixed with name calling are justified in the early church fathers, who potentially used similar fallacies of logic to name the heretics in their day?

We can not be sure, yet we still name the heretic by defining his beliefs through other's words, and we name the defender of the faith by listening to what he says about himself, and what his friends have to say about him. It seems to me that things have not changed, and they may not until disagreeing parties can learn to sit down with one another, and talk, and listen, and truly understand what each other are saying.

Who's the heretic? The one who teaches something misunderstood, or the one who accuses the teacher, maybe even falsely?

Aberrant Christianity is an issue of unethical behavior, as much as it is an issue of strange doctrine. One can not separate the two, yet the pursuit of Pelagius appears to do just that.

I have seen accusers get away with unethical behavior, and be rewarded for it. Is this the fruit of 2,000 years of heresy hunting? I should hope not.

Redefining Heresy (Part 1)

"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works." (Titus 2:11-14)

A typical evangelical approach to orthodox teaching, and its antithesis - heresy, is a completely intellectual issue. A heretic is someone who believes, and teaches something different than the accepted orthodox positions.

Very early in the Christian Church this became the primary means of identifying heretics, and separating them from the church - thanks to such people as Augustine, who relentlessly pursued Pelagius - perhaps even to the death.

The writings of John have become sources for this position. John tells a house church in his second epistle to avoid inviting heretical teachers into the home. These heretical teachers rejected the teaching that Christ came "in the flesh."

Paul likewise warns the church about teachers bringing rules about keeping the law, and sporting a doctrine of salvation through obedience to the Mosaic covenant.

Yet this approach toward defining heretics is far too simplistic, and potentially detrimental to the life of the church. In the passage written to Titus by Paul we discover that the teaching concerning Jesus is a teaching which is connected to our behavior. It is tied to denying lusts, and ungodliness.

I have heard of people who were called into account for supposed false teaching, but when was the last time someone was called a heretic for something other than an issue of teaching falsely? If someone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is a heretic, what is a Christian leader who lies, and destroys the ministries of other people for his own selfish gain? Is he not someone who is living out his "worldly lusts" and denying the "grace of God which brings salvation"? I would say yes, and I would also say that I know such people. I would say that I know Christian leaders who honor such people.

How did we get to the place where the guy with big church is the hero, even if he has harmed others to get there? How is it that he is not the heretic?

I am fan of sound teaching, but I find that I am becoming more of a fan of sound living. Those who teach mercy and mercilessly walk over others to get what they want, are heretics of the worse kind, and instead of being celebrated, ought to be rejected, and kicked out of leadership in the house of God.

Somewhere Else

Avebury - Phil by the Stone
Originally uploaded by philkwyman.

Have you ever just felt like being somewhere else? This shot of me at Avebury reminds of a somehwere else I rather be right now. I don't often feel that way, because I love where I live, but the old denominational group, just sent another lie via snail mail, and I'd rather be somewhere else.

"Why do the wicked prosper?" I ask myself.

Of course, Webb reminded me the other day when we got together, when these things happen I understand why "the heathen rage."

My real reason for making this post was I wanted to get this photo on my profile, but Blogger has this really stupid process to get it from your computer to your profile.

What the heck is up with that!?

Oh, Mighty Nazarene Atlas!

I read stories of my hero the Nazarene Heretic, and I look for reasons for His behavior. I question why He treated some people more harshly than others, and why He treated some with the gentleness typically shared between lovers.

I have seen Him berate respected religious leaders for lying, stealing, creating followers whose destiny was Hell, and being motivated by Satan himself. Yet He carefully, and lovingly delivered an adulteress from public humiliation, and the threat of the law's punishment. What makes a man behave in such a manner?

The Nazarene saw something we do not, and its weighty concern bore upon him like the mythic Atlas carrying the world upon his shoulders.

Religious men stood between God, and the people God loved. Could it be that we still do this today?

Oh, Mighty Nazarene Atlas! I kneel before Your wisdom, and tremble before Your anger.