Perhaps there should be one along the lines of 'missional leader's made up story'.
I've described my views of Mike Breen and 3DM in the past, and have serious concerns that they are, in fact, a cult that will gradually draw people away from orthodox Christianity and into some kind of nebulous gnosticism combined with an understanding of evangelism like the jehovah's witnesses.
So today I started looking at The Gospel Primer by Caesar Kalinowski.
I don't get why people need to tear others down if they have something good. In the introduction it is suggested that you must use HIS method of meeting together, because at present your bible studies are empty and your housegroup meeting is pathetic. Then further on in the start of the section talking about The Gospel, he describes a meeting of pastors where he asked the question 'what is the gospel', and apparently out of a dozen answers not a single one mentioned creation, sin, Jesus, the cross or the kingdom. Really? From a dozen answers to the question put straight like that and not a single one mentioned any of those things? Not once, not any of them? Really? Was this the pagan pastoral association we were asking?
Is that underwear I smell smouldering?
Further on in the section, there are a series of questions weighted to demonstrate how the reader is inadequate and getting it wrong if they aren't doing it the CK way. One of them was based around 'why aren't you sharing the gospel with more people' and the slightly naughty Toni wanted to say 'it's because they aren't my people of peace'.
To be fair to the book, it looks like there might be some good stuff in there too, and 30 years ago we'd probably have swallowed this and run with it, believing that
Please, if you're going to write books for the people of God, leave out the crap - it just destroys your credibility and devalues the teaching you present.
Chris and I have been talking about being challenged recently. We've been through quite a bit over the years, and TBH have had enough of it now. I'm seriously wondering if it isn't time to go re-join the church of England so that we can get on with trying to live as Christians while this missional fad blows over.
*edit*
I've read a bit further - there is some genuinely good stuff in there, though I keep reading things that don't match what I see as sound theology (forgive the old-fashioned term) that feel like the scriptures have been made to fit a theory, rather than theory made to fit the scriptures. An example of this would be discipleship=evangelism=disipleship, where the word evangeism has been used to replace the word salvation in the context used, and while there's an explanation for doing this, it doesn't ring true.
I enjoy your humour, Toni, particularly the sarcastic bits. The struck-out phrase in this post made me chuckle.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this was sarcasm, too, but I don't think reentering the CoE would be such a bad thing (as an outside observer who finds BoCP worship appealing, at least on the occasions I participate in it). These days it sometimes feels like it's more of a question of which problems or questionable elements can I tolerate, rather than whether it reflects orthodox Christianity. I think the CoE, from what I know if it, does reflect such, at *in most places*, but I think I can say the same thing with the same caveat about a lot of denominations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Marc - sarcasm is the lowest/highest form of wit, depending on point of view. Glad you liked my trying to make light of things. :-)
ReplyDeleteRejoining the CoE would be a sign of desperation at the moment, I think, because it would be like parking our lives. It wasn't sarcasm, so much as a desire to escape the pressures that seem to get piled on by all kinds of sources.
I am VERY concerned that the new generation of Christian leaders doesn't seem to be building on a good foundation, and that the missional church thing is a bandwaggon and sink for energy and activity that claims to be building and discipling churches while actually leaving them hollowed on the inside, less well taught and less strongly connected to each other.