[…] –Conservative Intelligencer […]

For more on some of these “leaders” check out: http://www.justinpeters.org

Justin Peters is considered by some to be an expert of the WoF movement and exposes its metaphysical roots…

He has a unique perspective as he has cerebral palsy.

If you click on “demo” you can view Justin giving a brief overview of his seminar called, “A Call for Discernment” at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. It’s excellent!

Justin spoke at my church last fall and is highly recommended by my pastor, Dr. John MacArthur.

John Stott is your pastor? Wow!

cls-

It’s great to see someone speaking out on the WoF movement. I grew up within that cult and learned just how pernicious it really is.

And nah, John Stott isn’t my pastor. My pastor referred me to an article by David Brooks about Stott. I -do- have a couple of books by him though.

truly some weird stuff out there. need a green prayer hankie to mop up your holy mineral spring water and anointing oil off the prayer rug with? all available for low, low prices.

itching ear salve not included.

I just heard an anecdote about John Stott from the pulpit this past Sunday, that was really impressive.

Upon his first (note, first) introduction to David Wells, Stott very quickly learned that Wells had been kicked out of his family upon his conversion, and had gone to London to study (something like architecture, as I recall) and try to make his way in the world, but he was struggling. Stott invited Wells to live with him on the spot, and provided a home for him for the next few years.

That’s the kind of godly leader that has genuine apostolic sanction. (The preacher who related this story pointed out that this kind of hospitable behavior is particularly remarkable in a bachelor, as Stott has always been.) St. Paul oddly enough didn’t mention anything about good hair or media presence, but hospitality and kindness are right up there.

pgepps-

My fave was the holy breastplate that one of the female WoF charlatans would wear when praying over prayer requests (for a fee, of course!)

pentamom-

That is cool. Somehow I can’t imagine Benny Hinn sheltering needy Christian students in any of his mansions.

…did she get the idea from a Madonna concert?

and, yes, pentamom’s right: hospitality has a much-overlooked prominence in the NT, and especially so for leaders. It’s quite heavily insisted upon, in fact.

Interesting conversation. I’ve been thinking about this a bit, especially since I had a conversation about representatives of atheism with an athiest friend of mine. He is convinced that atheism is non-evangelistic while Christianity (he is familiar with both Catholic and Protestant branches) is very much into “making people believe what they believe.” When I mentioned people like Dawkins and others who have been very vocally evangelistic about atheism (especially recently) his argument was shaken but not his conviction. I definitely wouldn’t hold up some of your list as bearers of truth, but they are often a lot less pugilistic in the public arena. BTW, really liked the article about Stott.

Anyone who speaks out passionately for or against any topic can rightfully be called evangelical. I will discuss the existence of God with anyone who wants to, even though I consider myslef an atheist. What I don’t like, is someone pushing their points of view on me, Christian, atheist, or otherwise.

…perhaps we should clarify some terms, here? Though I know “evangelistic” has become equated with “promotional” and “revivalist” and through that term has come to be applied to tech-industry PR people, “evangelical” should still be reserved for a subset of Christians. However, not all evangelicals, or all Christians, agree on the amount or type of “proselytizing” that is appropriate. Some define quite a significant difference between “missions” and “missional living” and “proselytizing,” while others really don’t see how evangelistic efforts could be thus subdivided.

I’m not a fan at all of “Religious Right” efforts to force people to act like the Christians they aren’t (especially when they don’t even have their Christianity right). I’m not a fan of people who need to defeat souls (as opposed to winning them) or win arguments (as opposed to deploying them). All too often, they turn out to be trying to work up assurance of their own faith, or prove something to someone else, or somehow earn their freely given grace. (see Galatians)

Just the same, well, how could anyone who thinks they have truth that other people are ignoring and avoiding, mangling their lives into nonsense and futility, be so callous as not to insist on it, a bit? One need not be counterproductive to care enough to say so.

What is this, dear “Mr. Wesley”, do we all go by pseudonyms in these hallowed halls? Puzzling to me.

John Stott is your pastor? I for one would wish that your pastor was 1/10 the man that John Stott has been, apart from that pesky hell thing.

But I have two questions. 1) where in the world do you get the idea that 43% of our neighbors are heading out for church on any given Sunday? 2) given the ‘characters’ you mentions as ‘Christian leaders’ in your post, can you really blame Hollywood for inserting them into movies? They are far more entertaining than the average Joe.

And, yes, my name really is Randy. I’m stuck with it.

Randy’s attitude is a little hard to figure, but I do agree with the thrust of rhetorical question number 2.

As long as professions of faith and bizarrely anti-social and un-Christian behavior go hand-in-hand, we can expect that a culture that values the novel and original overmuch, and likes to set up (then knock down) celebrities, will use those who profess such a “faith” for playthings.

Pseudonyms? Just one small layer of privacy for pre-employment google searches in the future, especially if the future includes the hallowed halls of academia.

And I read the sentence not about Stott as pastor but as a IRL pastor recommending an article. . .

Maybe this brings a little clarification to the first two points? The other two? I’m clueless.

PG-

“Randy’s attitude is a little hard to figure”

It’s especially hard to figure, as he’s my pastor and it was his blog I linked.

Randy-

Good to hear from you.

Question 1:

This site:
“If you listen to the answers provided by major opinion research firms, the answer usually hovers around 40%. (National Opinion Research Center: 38%; Institute for Social Research’s World Values: 44%; Barna: 41%; National Election Studies: 40%; Gallup: 41%.)”

And this.

And this.

This says 40%.

Gene Veith’s book on Postmodern Times also cites the 43% figure on page 209.

There may be some reporting bias in some of these studies, but the fact is, 40+% of Americans claim weekly attendance, and have done so since the 1950s. The numbers have barely shifted over time.

Question 2:

I don’t really buy this line of argument. Yes, many Christian leaders are wacky. But millions of Christian common people are decent, as are most pastors. Television is filled with television shows portraying average people (often thrust into extraordinary situations, of course.) Where are the normal, everyday Christian characters? There are more positive portrayals of psychics on TV than of Christians.

I admit that I am puzzled. I am a guest here. I don’t know those to whom I am speaking, with only a couple of exceptions. So, I obviously conveyed some type of attitude, and that is a mystery to me. It would be helpful to me if someone could explain what triggered this response. My reference to John Stott was simply a response to the fairly funny initial post by ‘cls’: “John Stott is your pastor? Wow!” Well, anyway, I’m sorry to have offended. I’m just curious what the ‘attitude’ is that everyone seems to be picking up on.

As to the stats, the very first article referenced makes my point. The stats are only for those who claim to attend weekly. I think the reality is more in the 20% range. That is, on any given Sunday, 80% of our neighbors are at home.

To all – please forgive me. I’m told I came across as a bit snooty in my original post. I really didn’t mean to. I had a playful spirit and my tongue in my cheek, and being someone few here knew and none well, those things were not seen. Please know that I did not intend to speak down to anyone. I will try to be better behaved in the future.

Randy, the clue that you’re his pastor makes it all clear. I see where the humor and assumed background would have filled in the data I needed to read the “attitude.” It was an “attitude” of jocularity.

Important bit of context, there!

I hope I was tactfully wary.

Pleased ta meetcha!

and, lo, there is “Randy” on each and every post on the linked blog. d’oh!