Skip to content

Category Archives for My Own Personal Religion

Entitlement for Fun and Profit

I know what I want
I know what I need
I want a miracle
I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me
(A new car!)

I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I do deserve the best (Keep on confessing)
The very, very, very, very Best
I’m one of the king’s kids
I deserve the best, I want
(A new car!)
– Terry Taylor, “New Car!”

In my line of work (which I shall only make vagues references to) I have, for 20 years, had to deal with those under the spell of the Entitlement Myth. If something goes wrong, these people immediately start looking for someone, not only to blame, but to give them what they feel they are “entitled” to. In fact, blame is not usually as important as the “deep pocket,” whoever that might be. “Somebody owes me something,” is the general premise.

The Christian side of entitlement thinking is not much different than the secular side, except for the focus: ultimately, it is God’s responsibility. However, most entitlement-oriented Christians will never say that, because it sounds sinful and selfish, and because religious people can’t get mad at God for anything. Instead, usually the target is shifted from God to the church. The church, after all, is made up of sinful people, so as sinners, they’re more easy to blame.

I’ve seen it over and over – those with terrible work habits, various lifestyle issues, horrendous money-management skills and just generally unwise will look to those around them who are industrious (and therefore more “blessed”) for handouts. Some unskilled individuals actually want to learn “to fish.” However, the entitlement crowd would rather have you give them the fish. Since you already know how to fish enough to share, why should they learn, too?

The sin of the Entitlement Myth is named in the 10 Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet …” Obviously this is nothing new. Whether they spiritualize the issue or not, the issue is still the belief that they deserve what someone else has. This is a totally different issue than the command to “give to anyone who asks of you,” although these folks don’t see it that way. Paul clarified the issue somewhat when he said plainly, “he who won’t work shouldn’t eat.” Feeding widows and orphans is one thing; feeding lazy slobs is another thing altogether.

There are those who have legitimate needs, due to work layoffs, illness, disaster, etc. Then there are those who are simply stupid, who overspend, under-work and in general live a lot like the Prodigal Son. However, notice that in the story, the Prodigal didn’t expect his father to give him anything- he had repented enough to have learned the value of work. Often, I think we enable prodigals to continue in their sin by letting our misplaced sympathies and guilts move us to bail them out, before they have had opportunity to repent. In effect, by not listening carefully to God, we can thwart God’s plans by being generous when generosity is not called for.

We tend to try to balance out issues in our minds, by thinking that the command to feed the poor somehow relates to an entitlement by the poor to what the rich have. However, I think this is a grave error in reasoning; the call of God on the rich to be generous is simply that. The poor are not told to look to the wealthy, or to the establishment (the church or the government) – they are to ask God directly. How God works that out is His business.

Now (to go back to the song quoted above), the concept of being entitled to a blessing seems to me to be a contradiction. If you’re entitled to something, it’s not a blessing. However, there are those who believe that they are entitled to be blessed, which is a fair segue into the next post …

Written on 25 November 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles with No Comments

A note about exegesis & hermenuetics

I have not attended seminary (which is probably obvious to some of you). I have not taken any class on either exegesis or hermeneutics. I don’t read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin; at times I barely speak English. However, I do try to read the Bible as objectively and honestly as I can, and according to generally accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. So, I thought this would be a good time to explain how I try to read and understand the Bible.

Exegesis is, for those who don’t know, is a Greek word meaning “to draw the meaning out of.” Strictly speaking, it refers to drawing the meaning out of a text, based solely on the text itself. However, often the word more broadly to mean the use of all available information to draw the meaning out of a text. It sometimes is used interchangeably with hermeneutics, which refers to the philosophy of methods of interpretation and exegesis.

On the flip side we have eisegesis, which means to put meaning into the text. This is not necessarily invalid; however honest scholarship would demand the identification of “hunches” about meaning, apart from exegetical opinions. (Unfortunately, eisegesis seems to have become the preferred study method for some preachers, often to the exclusion of exegesis.)

Gordon Fee says that exegesis “… answers the question, ‘What did the biblical author mean?’ It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?” (New Testament Exegesis, p 27.)

Now, of course, to go any further, you have to agree that it’s important to determine what the author intend his original readers to understand. Some, relying, for example, totally on the Holy Spirit’s revelation, may not care, believing that God will simply reveal to us what He wants us to get out of the passage. I am by no means discounting the importance of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, which I also hope for; however, I also believe that we have been given “all things pertaining to life and Godliness,” which includes the ability to think and reason. Some Eastern religions would tell you to turn off your mind and simply feel; Christianity involves the mind whille constantly reminding us that there is something beyond our intellect.

It seems fairly obvious to me that a 1st Century Jew would have a completely different grid than a 21st Century American of European descent, and that even should we come up with a perfect Greek to English translation, we’d walk away with different understandings of the same passage. Therefore, taking some effort to look beyond a simple rendering of an English translation makes sense if we are really wanting to understand what is being said. (I do not assume that the Holy Spirit will do all of that for us; if it were so, I doubt there would be so many different denominations.)

Now, adding to the problem, we all have our own internal “noise” which clouds our picture of what is being said. This noise is not necessarily a bad thing; it consists of our worldview, our presuppositions, our understanding of the way things are. This forms from what we are taught, and changes as we learn. As we read the Bible, we understand it based upon what we already believe. We can’t even read John 3:16 without understanding it based on what we already understand.

So, as much as possible, I try to recognize my own “noise” and filter that out; it’s not always easy, or even possible, to do. But, I try to the best of my abilities to read and to understand (with the Holy Spirit’s help) with someone else’s eyes. In doing so, I am finding that my grid has and is changing.

And, I always consider the remote possibility that I still could be wrong …

Written on 15 October 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles with 5 Comments

Thoughts on justice

I can’t improve on this.

Written on 12 September 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Politics/Current Events with No Comments

Suggestive spirituality

This weekend I went to our State Fair, which is always an enlightening experience. It’s always amazing to me how many kinds of food you can actually get on a stick, or how exciting some people can make waterless cookware sound. I did have a somewhat enlightening experience, but nothing to do with deep-fried twinkies or cookware.

Mainly, I enjoy walking around, watching people, and taking hundreds of photos that I will probably never look at again. We had to leave the fair before I had a chance to view the photography exhibit, so I went back later on and walked around after dark, where I got some interesting shots of the midway lights. It was then that my attention was directed toward the one and only Travis Fox, the hypnotist.

Usually I avoid hypnotists; I recall going to these traveling shows as a kid, always being slightly spooked by the weirdness. I’m not quite so spooked now, as I’m older, hopefully wiser, and have been exposed to a number of revival meetings that were way spookier than any hypnotist. However, this guy was not your standard, sleazy, hypno-fake; he certainly could be a fake, but he wasn’t sleazy, and besides, I had nothing better to do. (I looked him up online after the show, and found that among other things, he’s got a Ph.D. in psychology.)

It is not a new thought to me that many “spiritual” experiences that people have are not unlike a hypnotist’s act. Watching the show, seeing how easily people were controlled and the amazing power of suggestion, I thought again of many of the weird “Christian” things I have seen over the years, plus many things that perhaps are not so weird.

On the Christian extreme, we have the various pentecostal performers/ministers; in the old days, it was Charles & Frances Hunter (“The Happy Hunters”); more recently, we have Benny Hinn, and many more lesser known folks. Are they sincere? Probably, for the most part. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t using the same techniques to elicit responses; people will respond extremely quickly to suggestion (and even to their own expectations).

Things I’ve seen include falling over (including injuries resulting from falling over), various odd and not-so-odd physical responses, laughter, and making animal noises. These, by the way, don’t include the things I’ve seen in “exorcisms,” which I think often drift into the hypotrance arena. I’ve also witnessed people being controlled by various “words” spoken over them.

The power of suggestion, especially in a therapy / ministry situation, is extremely powerful and dangerous; however, most ministers (and many therapists) fail to recognize it, rather choosing to believe that these manifestations are always signs of God’s work.

The power of suggestion in ministry worries me. Our church has recently announced a class in some kind of inner healing method with a new-agey name; have you ever wondered why there is no inner healing in the New Testament? (I’ve often wondered if it’s because we’re finally at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy.) All of this emphasis on prophetic words, guided imagery, and so on worries me; it’s all too easy to manipulate people. And, those who minister are people, too – we all long to be effective, and the temptation is always there to manipulate manifestations in order to affirm the minister.

I’m not saying that all spiritual experiences are phony – I’m just saying that one of the gifts that is seldom displayed is that of discernment. If I want to see a hypnosis demonstration, I’ll go to the fair; I’d rather not see it in church.

Written on 05 September 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion with 6 Comments

λειτουργία: On Liturgies and other Public Works

As I’ve mentioned recently, I was raised Lutheran. Since leaving the Lutheran Church, I’ve attended and visited a number of different churches, from Greek and Russian Orthodox to Evangelical Free to independent charismatic and “third wave” churches, to post-modern experiments. I can say from experience that there are things to appreciate, and things to challenge, about all of these traditions.

One of the things I have noticed in the more contemporary, freestyle church is that they are made up of people who fall mainly into one of three groups:

  1. Those who were raised in the more traditional “liturgical” churches and upon “getting saved,” now despise their former church, seeing it as representative of “dead religion;”
  2. Those who were raised in a fundamentalist, anabaptist or other “non-liturgical” type of church, who have no personal experience of “high” church (and who also view high churches as dead religion);
  3. And, last but not least, those who have no church background whatsoever, and who more than likely have been given no theological framework for evaluating any church tradition (and who probably assume what they are in is the “best,” which is a normal default assumption).

These attitudes can come from what they have been taught, or simply from the modernist assumption that “newer is necessarily better.” In truth, newer is neither better nor worse, simply because it’s newer. Newer benefits from additional scholarship and historical perspectives; on the other hand, the modernist form of newer often tends to toss the baby out with the bath.

The result is that there is often a misunderstanding about liturgy; views range from seeing liturgy as merely old-fashioned to downright evil. An example is the adage, “liturgy is what you do when the Holy Spirit fails to show up.” Most critics fail to appreciate the historical importance of liturgy, which has served as a crucial teaching tool as well as a theological “rudder” through the ages, especially before the Bible was available for mass distribution.

The other common misunderstanding about liturgy is that contemporary churches don’t have it, which of course is an absurd thought. The Greek word from which we get our word “liturgy” simply means “public works,” or in other terms, “the way things are done.” If you go to church knowing you sing for 30 minutes, take an offering then listen to a sermon for the remainder of the time, you’ve got a liturgy.

What most people mean, however, in their dissing of liturgy is the repeated recitation of creeds, proclamations and prayers. The assumption here is that if it isn’t ad hoc or spontaneous, it’s not valid. I’ll not only disagree with this assumption, but offer this: if this is truly what you believe, then you’d better stop singing worship choruses, too. A song is merely a recitation put to music.

I will also suggest that if you are comparing 30 minutes of worship songs to 30 minutes of responsive readings and hymns, the choruses will come up short on many points. The main one for me is that creeds and responsive reading generally tend to be theologically and Biblically accurate, something which you can’t always say about worship songs.

Be honest: do you really believe what it is you are singing every Sunday morning? If not, you are not only participating in a meaningless liturgy, you might also be a hypocrite to boot!

I am not proposing that the so-called “high” churches are better than your church, or that they are worse. I am merely pointing out – once again – that the freestyle churches’ liturgies tend to lack in sound teaching and theology, and it’s time we changed that. What’s wrong with people learning sound doctrine through worship? I have a feeling that was the thought behind the Orthodox (which pre-dated Roman Catholicism) liturgy to begin with.

Learning in church… what a concept!

Written on 23 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 3 Comments

The problem with sermons

As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised Lutheran, which I consider to have been a good thing, even though I haven’t been to a Lutheran church in many, many years. It was a good thing because in this tradition, representative of what many would call “dead” religion, I was taught a very sound, living theology which has survived through waves of trends and movements.

One of the things which I now appreciate about my church and the liturgies as set forth in the “red” hymnal (I can’t speak for the newer ones) is that Scripture was highly valued – the reading of pre-chosen Bible passages from both the Old and New Testaments was given a very prominent place in the service. You may question various Lutheran interpretations of scripture, but that doesn’t mean that Scripture wasn’t shown the respect that it deserved.

One of the other things I now appreciate was that the sermon was only 10-15 minutes long.

For the last twenty-some years, I have been attending various “freestyle” churches which, to varying degrees, will claim to have a more vital and true interpretation and demonstration of the Bible. I will agree in part with this assessment; however, all is not well with the freestyle church.

One of the first things you notice when switching from a liturgical church to a more contemporary tradition is that the pastor talks a lot more; sermons can range from 30 to as much as 90 minutes long. That might not be so bad, except that most sermons only have enough quality stuff for about 10-15 minutes, and the rest is, at best, filler. (Hint: unless you’re David Letterman, let’s forget the warm-up comedy bits.)

My main complaint, however, is not the length of the sermon. My complaint is that today’s contemporary sermons do not teach the Bible, or theology; rather, they are merely an opportunity for the pastor or speaker to present their Perspective on Life. As interesting as this may be, there is no place in the Bible where you can find justification for this practice.

The Perspective on Life Sermon can’t honestly be touted as Biblical exposition; in fact, the Bible is often manipulated by quoting partial passages from a dozen different locations to support the predetermined point the pastor wants to make. Often during these speeches, verses will come to my mind which cast at least some doubt on the point being made; however, these are never addressed in the sermon (although I would bet the speaker’s aware of the same verses), for to do so would detract from the pastor’s point. The Point has somehow become inspired, if not inerrant, and the Bible is used to support The Point.

Even in cases where “through the Bible” style sermon series are given, the pastor’s perspective will usually dominate the problem texts of Scripture, if they’re addressed at all. A good speaker can slalom his way down a passage of Scripture without really dealing with it; sometimes the pastor’s need to present his perspective is so great that the Biblical text is almost immaterial. Within the last few weeks I heard a pastor completely abandon his text to insert some personal perspectives which had nothing whatsoever to do with the passage he was speaking on, and present no Biblical basis whatsoever for his perspective. This is not “preaching the Word.” What it is, to varying degrees, is manipulation and deception.

Jeremiah 31, speaking of life in the New Covenant, said:

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

So… why do we need to pay some guy to give us his perspective on life? (You know, I’ve never heard a pastor speak on this passage…) In my humble opinion, it’s time to elevate the Bible back where it belongs, and to put the sermon back where it belongs – into a supporting role, if we have one at all. And, if we insist on having one, let’s shorten it up a bit.

Written on 17 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 7 Comments

Further reflections on worship

I have written before (beginning here) concerning issues of contemporary “Evangelical” spirituality; if you haven’t read the prior “My Own Personal Religion” series, I highly recommend it. This is another in that series, as I continue to read, watch, and evaluate things. 

Among other things, I have been paying close attention to the lyrics of the worship songs we have been singing and the congregation’s (I am tempted to say audience’s) response. I’ve also paid close attention to the sermons I have heard (from 4 different speakers that I’ve heard in the last 2 months), and following are some observations.

First, concerning worship: Most of the songs are theologically vacuous. That is, the songs beg for some real worship material. God, you are great…  Why?  Jesus, I love you…  Again, why?  What characteristics produce this response? What can inspire me to sing heartily along?  You’re too marvelous for words…  I think the Psalmists could disagree. Some of these songs are not far off from George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord.  Now, I am not totally against these songs; but, if that’s all you sing, it’s like eating cotton candy for every meal.

A couple of weeks ago, we sang a song by an old friend of mine, Brent Helming, Your Beloved:

Lord it was You who
Created the heavens
Lord it was Your hand
That put the stars in their place
Lord it is Your voice
That commands the morning
Even oceans and their waves
Bow at Your feet

Believe it or not, the song gets even better. One thing that I was instantly aware of was that my mind was actually engaged in worship, perhaps for the first time in months. It struck me at that moment that most of our contemporary worship songs are aimed at our emotions, actually encouraging us to disconnect our brains. 

In fact, if you actually think about many of the worship songs we sing, it actually kills worship – if the words aren’t wimpy, they’re actually wrong. There’s nothing like bad theology to kill a good worship set. That is, unless people have been encouraged to not think about what they are singing.  However, sing a great old hymn or a song like Your Beloved, and thinking about the words actually inspires worship! What a concept!

Last Sunday, this suspicion - that we are trained not to think about worship -was further supported: I watched the congregation as one wimpy song ended, and another song with a great beat and a heavy rock guitar riff started in – the people started “worshipping” without any words at all.  Worshipping? or just rocking out?  It’s really difficult to tell.  Perhaps they just anticipated the words…

Jesus told the woman at the well that “those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”  Now, this is a somewhat enigmatic statement, at least as it is translated into English. What I understand it to mean, at least in part, is that worship is not only a liturgical/physical/emotional act, it also has to be based in truth. That means that true worship should also involve our mind.

Bottom line: I believe that it is a worship leader’s job not just to manipulate an emotional / spiritual response – although an emotional / spiritual response is not in itself wrong. It is their job (yeah, I’ve been a worship leader…) to encourage people to worship with their minds as well as their spirits. In Spirit, and in Truth.  Of course, that requires a bit more of a worship leader than just being a fair musician.

Next: The problem with sermons

Written on 14 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments

There are no innocent readers

… there are no innocent readers anymore. Each overlays the text with his own perverse view. A reader is the total of all he’s read, in addition to all the films and television he’s seen. To the information supplied by the author he’ll always add his own. And that’s where the danger lies … Arturo Peres-Reverte, The Club Dumas

There are no innocent readers. We may think that we read the Bible and take away from it what is plainly there; but do we? Can we read, for example, one of Paul’s letters to a first Century church, without somewhere in the back of our mind understanding that they occupy a building such as the ones we attend, or that they have an organization similar to what we know, or hold services of a similar nature to ours? Can we read the Old Testament and understand what it was like to live without the presence, or even the direct influence, of the Holy Spirit?

We may try, and think we do a mighty fine job. And perhaps, given the fact that we are “polluted” with extrinsic information and experience and interpretation, we do. But, maybe we don’t. Maybe we assume too much, jump to too many conclusions. We trust the Holy Spirit to speak to us, and I believe that He does – but, we know for a fact that the Holy Spirit doesn’t prevent us from error. Remember, we’re not perfect, just forgiven… (that was sarcasm, in case you missed it).

And what about those of us who claim to “hear” from God directly? Can we even hear what the preacher says, and walk away with a correct impression of what he said? We’ve all played the rumor game, where you sit in a circle and pass around a bit of information, which ends up completely different than what was originally said.

I’m not mentioning this to make us feel hopeless and dejected, but to merely point out that we need to keep in mind what is called “interference,” the other information and noise that makes us not be innocent readers and hearers. It’s just a fact; we do see through a glass darkly. It’s scriptural…

We read and hear with our individual and cultural filters in place, and it takes work to photoshop the information back into a reasonable likeness of what was really said. Discussion is probably a good way to recognize and deal with our filters, as long as we are discussing with those with a different set of filters (otherwise we just justify our common filters). When we talk (or blog), we display our filters, not only to others, but to ourselves. That’s why I do this…

So, know this: you are not an innocent reader. But then, neither am I.

Written on 02 August 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion with 1 Comment

Authority issues, revisited

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that most Evangelical pastors accept the authority of the Bible, however they would interpret that phrase. Most will probably say, at the very least, that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Suppose then, that it is their job to teach/preach/sermonize on Sunday mornings and at other times during the week.

Given these suppositions, wouldn’t you then conclude that these Evangelical pastors carefully examine the passages they reference in their sermons, checking their interpretations against the remainder of the Bible (I am also assuming they believe no one passage is more inspired than another)? Wouldn’t you also conclude that these pastors & teachers operate in “fear and trembling” lest they misrepresent the Word of God?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? James even says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” However, I doubt very much that this is the case. All you have to do is listen to about 10 minutes of “Christian” broadcasting (radio, TV or the internet) to conclude that they must rank their own authority, or the authority of their own “revelations” above the authority of the Bible.

Here’s the deal: if pastors would take the authority of the Bible seriously, they’d probably have to spend about 10 times as long on sermon prep, and, they’d run the risk of finding Scripture that pulls the rug out from under their main point. Trust me, I know from experience. There’s nothing worse than having a great point, then running into a passage that argues against it, especially if you’ve just invested a few hours of study time. Plus, it could mean rethinking your entire approach, which could really be costly.

The authority of Scripture is dangerous, as the author of Hebrews warns: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) It’s not only sharp on the leading edge, but you’ve also got a heck of a sharp edge pointing back at you.

I think it’s interesting that the more traditional churches, who devote more time reverently reading scripture as a part of worship also traditionally have the shortest sermons. It makes me wonder who it is who really believes in the authority of the Bible …

(For more thoughts on this subject, check out an old article of mine, Spinning the Word.)

Written on 19 July 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 1 Comment

Another walk around the elephant

Earlier this week, Plato wrote about his recent experience in church, remarkably similar to my own. I try not to complaint about church, but like Joe Walsh, sometimes I still do. If you’ve been reading my recent series, My Own Personal Religion, you know that I have some issues with what I see in the current trend of worship and church services in general.

The main trend, which is somewhat unusual, given the direction of my life for the past 20 years or so, is away from the focus on the personal experience, and toward a corporate, theologically and historically sound expression of church.

For example, last Sunday in church, worship was “standard” for our style of church: worship choruses, led by a rock/pop worship band. I was noticing during one particular song, that many of the people were really “into” it; however, the only thing the song really said was something like “God you are awesome.” Wow. That’s profound, isn’t it? It was so profound, we sang that line about 25 times. This, by the way, is by one of the “premier” worship songwriters today, and you probably sing it in your church. It struck me that this songwriter really had nothing to say about God – no reasons why God is awesome, no concrete examples, not even a few scriptural quotes. Just, “God you are awesome.” Then, when the song was over, people clapped. ??? Carried away by the profundity? Or by the music (it is a catchy song)?

The sermon started out wonderfully. The guest preacher actually taught the Bible, not his perspective on life. He talked about how he never gave “practical” sermons (the “how to” kind), but teaches the Bible. Yay! I was so happy… until all of a sudden he left the Bible and took a left turn into a patch of non-Biblical perspectives. And, most of the people rejoiced. I was, suffice it to say, disappointed.

A few years ago, I wrote a great little piece entitled The Challenge of the New Church (which can still be found on a few different sites on the web), based on the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each man grabbed hold of a different part of the elephant, and so each had completely different descriptions for what an elephant looked like. The moral of the story obviously is to keep moving, exploring, and open to new ideas.

Since I wrote that article, I have gone through spiritual detox, deconstruction, and decompression (and ocasionally depression). I am now in the process of reconstruction, having found a firm foundation intact, only to find that reconstruction has its own challenges. But, that’s another story. As I sat in church last Sunday, wondering why I was feeling so disjointed from the rest of the people I was with, the thought popped into my head, “you’re just walking around the elephant.” I will credit God with that thought, as it had a ring of truth that went beyond my ability to make stuff up.

As I have been “walking around the elephant” I now am seeing a part of the elephant I haven’t seen or appreciated for over 20 years. It’s not that a personal experience of worship isn’t valid; it’s that it has, for the most part, been removed from the rest of the elephant. People are happy swinging from the elephant’s trunk, not realizing that the foundation lies elsewhere.

There is a need to bring the church around to see that there is a larger context than just the elephant’s trunk; to ignore it is to wind up with one-dimensional worship experiences and preaching that can’t tell when it departs from the Bible. I think it’s time now, to move beyond the “I’m so happy” choruses and “be more committed to the program” sermons and spend a little time finding out about this God that we claim we are following.

Anybody else feel like taking a little walk?

Written on 15 July 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 1 Comment