By the way, stepping on toes is OK through blog comments, even in real life.

I've read through this post and the comments that followed. I'd like to make some comments too--just beware, I'm not overly impressed with what you're putting out.

Welcome, dialogue is fine even when you disagree.

First, I'm glad for your passion and zeal, but think you should slow down to edit your work a little--it would help guests like me to take it seriously.

This was written in 20 minutes after the show aired, not a manifesto or a work for the academy so grace eh?

Second, regardless of your language, ideologies, or vision, I want to call you to model Christ's attitude to those "other people" preaching in his name that the disciples wanted to damn--Jesus had a wider lens, I think. You cannot present this gospel of grace gracelessly--even when you're writing in the prophetic genre, which is what I suspect you fall under.

There is no damning. I'm shocked that people consider my words negatively, although prophets were always thrown under the bus, although I wouldn't consider myself one. If you'll note above I d on't condemn different ways to evangelize, I would rather challenge perspectives of the envagelical movement which are very much out of touch with the culture that surrounds them.

Third, I do wish to read more about what you are "for" rather than what you are against in future posts. Maybe, when the dialogue becomes as damning and negative as this, it's time to move beyond proving and disproving, and to move into building and teaching the good, the beautiful, the generous and gracious. After all, even the harshest of biblical prophets spoke out of love for God and love for their peoples, and with a fervent wish for their healing. The pomo spirit of "Speak truth to power" has got to move towards the more earthy, lived-in spirit of "Use power truthfully"--see Sharon Walsh's "Sweet Dreams in America."

I've damned someone to hell?! Oh no! My two degrees, one in theology aren't enough?! OH NO! Just beacuse I don't speak 'PHil's' truth doesn't mean my perspective is negative man!

Allow me to offer a post-preface that everything I speak (write) about is in love and respect.

Fourth, I think it would be helpful for you to add a greater depth of knowledge to your passion. The kind of questions you are addressing here have been addressed throughout Church history by brilliant and Godly people--and you may find some benefit in learning the theological language (and wisdom) of the longer conversation. I think you have something important to say, and I think that you will need more informed language in order to say it clearly. Try working through George Lindbeck's "The Nature of Doctrine" together--I think you will find it very much worth the effort. Also, an older work by the catholic theologian (and now Cardinal) Avery Dulles called "Models of the Church" might expand your ecclesial vision and clarify what you are after.

Yes, have touched on all, but more knowledge to be a better rational thinker is not the end answer to all of Christianity's problems. Furthermore, the above post was not an article about theology or ecclesiology. It is dangerous to assume intentions and adding perspective where there isn't any. (For example how evangelicals leveled the work of fiction called 'The Shack' for its poor theology even though it had nothing to do with theology and was a work of, yet again, FICTION.)

I do appreciate your contribution and will look further into these writers, but just because they are your favorite do not make them the sole voice of orthodoxy (which I doubt is what you were perpetuating.)

Anyway, I hope it's ok that I dropped by and left a comment. I'm sincerely glad you're working these questions through, but I hope that the ideologies that are surfacing in this ecclesial conversation will not leave too many victims among your sisters and brothers.

Victims? If you are a dead church then fine, no harm done. I'm not sweeping through breaking old wine skins, but I am challenging perspectives so that new wine skins emerge that are far more impactful for our Canadian context.

I would also be sincerely glad if you entered into this ecclesial debate you keep mentioning to provide your views. There's enough here you can gather about me, so let's have your view! I'm sure Pomotheo would be happy to put itup.

First, I'm glad for your passion and zeal, but think you should slow down to edit your work a little--it would help guests like me to take it seriously.

Second, regardless of your language, ideologies, or vision, I want to call you to model Christ's attitude to those "other people" preaching in his name that the disciples wanted to damn--Jesus had a wider lens, I think. You cannot present this gospel of grace gracelessly--even when you're writing in the prophetic genre, which is what I suspect you fall under.

Third, I do wish to read more about what you are "for" rather than what you are against in future posts. Maybe, when the dialogue becomes as damning and negative as this, it's time to move beyond proving and disproving, and to move into building and teaching the good, the beautiful, the generous and gracious. After all, even the harshest of biblical prophets spoke out of love for God and love for their peoples, and with a fervent wish for their healing. The pomo spirit of "Speak truth to power" has got to move towards the more earthy, lived-in spirit of "Use power truthfully"--see Sharon Walsh's "Sweet Dreams in America."

Fourth, I think it would be helpful for you to add a greater depth of knowledge to your passion. The kind of questions you are addressing here have been addressed throughout Church history by brilliant and Godly people--and you may find some benefit in learning the theological language (and wisdom) of the longer conversation. I think you have something important to say, and I think that you will need more informed language in order to say it clearly. Try working through George Lindbeck's "The Nature of Doctrine" together--I think you will find it very much worth the effort. Also, an older work by the catholic theologian (and now Cardinal) Avery Dulles called "Models of the Church" might expand your ecclesial vision and clarify what you are after.

Anyway, I hope it's ok that I dropped by and left a comment. I'm sincerely glad you're working these questions through, but I hope that the ideologies that are surfacing in this ecclesial conversation will not leave too many victims among your sisters and brothers.

Why do you make a distinction of 'ministry'? What is the purpose of that>? TO point out to the people you are 'ministering' that they are some sort of project? It creates an unusual and unnatural distinction between regular networks and friends, and people you hang out with because you have ulterior motives. So no i'm not judging your heart obviously, but challenging your perspective on what it means to live missionally....life is not a ministry, it's a mission...

but then again maybe THAT is just semantics ugh

Blessings

YOu exist in the rave scene because I'm assuming that's your language, where your friends are, where you connect. That's what it is, your network. Not MINISTRY. It's not like there's ministry life and regular life... there's just LIFE!

"It is my firm belief the current posture of evangelicalism in North America (particularly in the States) is on the demise because they can't adjust their distinctions to the ever changing world around us. "

I can think a a few more reasons than that for their decline....

"Movements are good, but I'm wary of your 'evangelizing'; you exist for the sake of mission everywhere you exist. You don't need to create a new ministry or outreach or intention outside of your normal routine (assuming you exist for the sake of mission). We can hit a wall of stupid if we treat our networks as nothing more than evangelizing opportunities (which may not be what you were saying)."

I just exist for the sake of the Kingdom what ever that may be and I do what I do, which is Rave ministry. There is a proper way to evangelise and a not so proper way, I will seek the proper.

Blessings