About Alan Hirsch

• Meet Alan Donate Alan's Schedule Links What Alan's reading... Archives Deb & Al's Personal Blog Contact

The Forgotten Ways

• Introduction Endorsements Training Resources

Affiliates

• Shapevine Forge Mission Training Network Christian Associates

28 Responses to “belief in belief”

1. james petticrew on September 4th, 2007 6:50 pm

   I don’t want to spark a big controversy (well maybe I do) but I have found this to be particularly true of those of a strong 5 point Calvinistic strain. They seem to even despise experience as some sort of lesser form of Christian knowledge for those without the intellectual ability to embrace “real theology.” This viewpoint in my view reduces discipleship to an intellectual exercise and worship to lecture.
   I think it is also a particular problem in many of theological colleges where this unspoken assumption means that those with an intellectual bent seem to be valued over those who seek genuine experience of God. The result is that we often send people into ministry who know a lot about God but may in fact know little of God.
   On the other hand I was brought up a Pentie and at times and idiotic belief (and mildly heretical too) was accepted as long as someone said God had told them it or it was an interpretation given in response to a message in tongues. While no wanting to deny the gift in “my experience” words of knowledge generally had little theological knowledge in them.
   Now I know I might sound like a record with its needle stuck here (remember them?) but John Wesley helps me here a great deal.
   Theologian Albert Outler identified what has become known as the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” What that term describes is basically Wesley’s epistemology. The discipline of the UMC in the States sums it up well ““Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”
   I particularly like what the article in Wikipedia says about Wesley’s theological method
   “… for Wesley, the chief test of the “truth and nothing but the whole truth” of a particular interpretation of scripture is how it is seen in practical application in one’s Experience. Always the pragmatist, Wesley believed that Experience formed the best evidence, after Scripture, for the truthfulness of a particular theological view. He believed Scriptural truths are to be primarily lived, rather than simply thought about or merely believed. Thus, how a particular interpretation of scripture is lived out is the best and most viable test of our theology. Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.”
   It seems to me that Wesley saves us from the extremes of a dry and arid intellectual Christianity and a purely subjective and individualistic piety. He values and learns from tradition and experience but refuses to be straightjacketed by them. He believes in the importance of rigorous theology derived from Scripture yet expects that theology to be experienced and lived out if it is true.
   Now if Wesleyans could only start actually being Wesleyan in this sense!

2. Annie Bullock on September 4th, 2007 10:09 pm

   I think in general, those with an intellectual bent are not valued in evangelical circles. just the language here “dry and arid intellectual christianity” and “immediacy is lost through the objectification of God” presumes there really is a difference between “head” and “heart.” I think making that distinction is a very evangelical thing to do and I think the distinction itself is bogus. Perhaps my experience of God is intellectual, perhaps intellect is passionate, engaged…not dry and arid.

   My point is, this understanding of the distinction between intellect and experience strikes me as both evangelical and problematic because it tends to value one side or the other or, in some cases, balance between the two poles. My problem with that? The poles don’t *really* exist. It isn’t about knowing things with my head and really feeling them with heart like I’ve been told a thousand times. I feel with my brain.

3. alan hirsch on September 4th, 2007 10:11 pm

   James, good comments. Actually in two or three posts back we probed the question as to why most Calvinists seem to be a particularly unhappy or dour people. Maybe this has something to do with it.

   C’mon Calvinists, defend yourselves!!

4. alan hirsch on September 4th, 2007 10:15 pm

   And James, you are right about the balance. The Pentecostal thing lends itself to whacky belief and action. The quadrilateral is an excellent way of approaching the issue. Wesley was a genius.

5. Alan Hirsch on September 4th, 2007 10:26 pm

   Annie, I do feel that any sociological analysis will prove that objectification of the knowledge of God (something which is inherent in the very act of theologizing) tends to diminish immediacy which is laced with subjectivity. I don’t think this polarity is false at all. On the other hand, the polarity between feeling and thinking can be bogus for sure. But not objectivity-subjectivity thing.

6. Patrick on September 5th, 2007 2:01 am

   Alan, do you think there’s a sort of soci-economic issue as well? Evangelicals tend to be of the suburban middle to upper-middle classes. Life might have challenges, but a lot of the religious issues involved have to do with existential angst more than pressing needs. So, they seek and teach a God who gives them security for their existential angst, forgiving guilt, beyond any kind of vacillation, logical and fitting into a nice framework, outside of which there’s just no understanding.

   Pentecostals, however, have much more of a connection with the poor and the needy and the uneducated. Basically, the same sort of audience that early methodism reached. The splitting of the early Methodism into the passion of the heart (Pentecostalism) and the passion of the mind (Holiness movements and Fundamentalism) divided, in essence the full work and balance of the Spirit.

   Those who are poor in material or emotional or spiritual ways need to see God. They need to see God now. Good News has to have a present power and sign.

   Those who are comfortable can depend on an existential Good News because there’s nothing really more they need now. They wait, and tell others to wait, and in the meantime put together their systems of who God Out There is.

   With Jesus, and now with the Spirit, God is with us, and here. So, to really know and see and taste the Kingdom already among us, as opposed to the not yet, maybe we have to be in those positions of real and present need.

   Just thinking out loud…

7. Richard Clarke on September 5th, 2007 2:36 am

   I think there may be another factor that is part of this mindset/actionset if you will…that is the learning system of the two fairly disparate systems. This, in turn, goes back to your discussion of the Hebraic versus Helenistic learning systems at the time of the New Testament. I would tend to believe, coming from that background myself, that most evangelicals are steeped in the Helenistic learning practices and experience is not a priority in the process.

   I also tend to think that most of the people that are going to fit into the lower middle class/non-first-world generic systems do not/could not fit well into the western learning systems and are not well placed to be reached by others practicing it.

   Comments, Alan?

8. Donnie on September 5th, 2007 5:55 am

   Alan, as one who grew up in a Pentecostal church and very involved in the tradition until a few years ago I think maybe something is missing from your observations.

   The experience is there…and searched for, immediacy is primacy all of that is true. But, there is always a certain lineage of the experience, passing it on. They in turn may not have beliefs about belief in regards to God, ontotheologicaly speaking. But they certainly are quickly to teach and objectify the experience itself. Any Pentecostal camp, or tent meeting is quick to transform the experience into linguistic structures to be grasped within epistemological categories. They definitely develop beliefs about belief separate from the experience, and recreate dogmatic less around God and more around the experience itself. The danger seems clear. They suffer from the same problems “evangelicals” suffer from.

   On another note, I think many penties would take issue with you dichotomizing them from evangelicals, as a separate category. They would see themselves as evangelicals of another sort.

9. donnie on September 5th, 2007 5:57 am

   Alan, as one who grew up in a Pentecostal church and very involved in the tradition until a few years ago I think maybe something is missing from your observations.

   The experience is there…and searched for, immediacy is primacy all of that is true. But, there is always a certain lineage of the experience, passing it on. They in turn may not have beliefs about belief in regards to God, ontotheologicaly speaking. But they certainly are quickly to teach and objectify the experience itself. Any Pentecostal camp, or tent meeting is quick to transform the experience into linguistic structures to be grasped within epistemological categories. They definitely develop beliefs about belief separate from the experience, and recreate dogmatic less around God and more around the experience itself. The danger seems clear. They suffer from the same problems “evangelicals” suffer from.

   On another note, I think many “penties” would take issue with you dichotomizing them from evangelicals, as a separate category. They would see themselves as evangelicals of another sort. But, then again I no longer lable myself as such so I may be wrong.

10. Patrick Oden on September 5th, 2007 6:47 am

    Donnie, having spent a fair bit of time in Pentecostal circles I think you’re right. Which is why, in my estimation, the emphasis on the Holy Spirit has in so many cases almost nothing to do with the actual character of the Holy Spirit. Though, they are still seeking the power and the experiences and the present reality of God, even if misplaced.

    I think some Penties would take issue, some would not, and some Evangelicals would take issue being included with such a group, some would not. Dallas Seminary, for instance, is pretty Evangelical, yet I think it’s not particular Pentecostal friendly, nor I think are such fellows as Sproul or John MacArthur.

11. Celtic Son on September 5th, 2007 11:42 am

    Hullo-o-o…

    In a rare moment of opportunity I figured I’d add my two cents worth, probably more like 20c by the time I’m finished, I simply can’t seem to condense my thinking further… it’s already confusing enough!

    There are a number of brilliant observations already in this thread. While the recognition of differences in theological heritage is important, it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It’s a difficult thing to make an apple into an orange, and if your taste buds are such that you prefer sweet apples then sour orange is always going to be less than preferable, but some people prefer the sour oranges. (I’d suggest that some of the hyper-Calvinist teachings - not all of which are a fair reflection of brother Johnny Calvin - may be more akin to sucking lemons )

    Fortunately, the capacity to reflect and redirect our thinking (repent) means we do not have to remain subject, to a mechanical process of becoming simply the sum of our history. We do need to be aware that our own experience will contribute to a personal preference in approaching God, and that our own experience influences our mediation of the experience - none of us have a capacity for complete objectivity. However, that need not be a limitation if we are prepared to be open to debate and embrace the perspective of others, where it adds value or corrects our own limitations. From my perspective, I am aware that I am not God - I’ve had to hang up my Messiah outfit - realising that Christ appointed the church - a whole community - as His body on the earth!

    Authentic “knowledge” of God is mediated in a community context - it is not mine alone, it comes from Him and through communion with His people, for His people. Therefore, I recognise that my thinking about God is at best incomplete, mostly limited, certainly flawed in areas and at worst fundamentally wrong in some respects… Understanding of God requires the people of God.

    I am therefore suspicious of individual assertions, particularly when they become strident and vociferous claims to “complete understanding.” I am suspicious of my own understanding, I am aware it is mediated by my own humanity; my reflections are simply “drafts for discussion,” that benefit from the investment of others. It does not mean that the individual has nothing to offer, it is important that we have such loving relationships with others that we have the confidence to voice our most bizarre thoughts to engage the community in our journey of recognising the God we love, serve and worship. However, the wise person recognises that credit for conclusions in an area of thinking, belongs to the community they have invested, tested and modified their thinking within. The mediation of the gifts of the Spirit, across the body is a reflection of His desire to invest truth via the individual, in partnership in the community, for the benefit of the community.

    All of that to say that I’m posting some thoughts in process, rather than the definitive answer to the question…

    Traditionally, churches which embraced the Pentecostal tradition in the last century, operated in that realm of community/ body ministry better than other church models, which had become more greatly defined by a teaching system employing qualified professionals, to impart information to less qualified “laity.” Without reference to particular statistical information, public perception and presentation would suggest that difference is not as extreme these days. The dominant image of Pentecostal churches seems to be that, while there is a retaining of elements of vibrant lively presentation, there has been a move away from the involvement of the “congregation” more towards prior models of teaching. It is very difficult for the uninitiated to perceive the difference between most evangelical gatherings and Pentecostal gatherings… except that the Pentecostal ones are louder and brighter and seem “more professional!”

    The point is that Alan’s observations may have been right, but are they now or will they be in the future or is his nostalgic view already superseded? Note: I write this from my perspective as a leader in a communitychurch that unapologetically seeks a “Pentecostal’ encounter with the Spirit of God.

    One of the fundamental issues is Richard Clarke’s point regarding Hebraic concepts of learning, which are foundational to the Scriptures. In the western context, we are immersed in an educational model built simply upon acknowledgement and retention of information - a good memory for information can get you through assessment tasks and exams, but doesn’t necessarily lead to a productive life if you never apply any of the information. In the church context this has led us to value acquired information over practical application, which seems to me to be the place that the Pharisees had brought their people to…

    In discussing issues of belief, knowledge faith etc with people I frequently return to the book of Genesis. What does it mean to “know” something in the context of the Word of God - how are we expected to “know,” what does that “knowledge” entail? The complete love within the sovereign Godhead results in fruitfulness - offspring - almost as if the power of complete love cannot help itself but be creative and produce fruit… So when God creates humanity in their image, that image contains, within its very being, an ontological DNA that is designed to produce blessing, fruitfulness, multiplication and dominion… a reflection of the nature of God who produced such offspring in their image in the first place. That is not to place the process of “blessing, fruitfulness, multiplication and dominion” within some simplistic prosperity framework, but to consider holistically that is will also contain within it opportunities for growth through seasons of trial, suffering, opposition, oppression, perseverance. It’s part of my journey to recognise that times of trial and difficulty I experience, still fall within God’s framework of “blessing, fruitfulness, multiplication and dominion,” and not diminish God’s framework due to my own experience or someone else’s theological comprehension.

    Our knowing of God is powerfully linked to knowing ourselves, through the experience of being ourselves, both as a reflection of God and in relationship to God. Our mediation of the experience is dependent upon the experience itself, dependent also on the experience of others, because my understanding is critically dependent upon the sharing of the experience with others - I define my experience by comparison with the differences they have had in their experience. The nature of the source of our communal experience is clarified by reference to the principles of the Word of God. We have sought to replace this rich tapestry of “knowledge” with the possibility of picking up a text in a Christian bookshop - or checking out a site on the net - and by virtue of the fact that we “agree” with what the author has written, we then assume we now have “knowledge” of the subject at hand! We are led by “experts” writing about matters they have never experienced!

    In Genesis 4… “Adam KNEW Eve… and she conceived… and gave birth to a son.” Biblically “Knowledge” is experiential communication; a blessing which leads to fruitfulness, multiplication and dominion. It is a far more holistic and powerful concept than the shallow understanding we have in western culture. Passing on of information intellectually is a small part of “knowledge”, important but incomplete until it is applied in action - then you “know”. I’m much happier that communion with my wife is built on a framework of biblical knowledge, rather than just talking about some things we agree about… and she is too… sometimes

    Annie Bullock commented; “It isn’t about knowing things with my head and really feeling them with heart like I’ve been told a thousand times. I feel with my brain.” I remember frequently being told “the longest journey for the Christian is the eighteen inches from the head to the heart,” but I am not stuck with the comments made to me by well-meaning people. My reflections on the Scriptures and consequent reframing of this has been a recognition that the issues are about the heart first - God looks at the heart, God changes the heart, the Hebrew concept relates to the “bowels” - the core of your being - rather than feeling with my mind, my mind interprets what’s going on in the core of my being. The reason we feel this is “the longest journey” is that we’re trying to travel the journey stuck in reverse gear!

    Biblically the journey is FROM the heart TO the head, it may seem like a simple observation… but when you reflect on it for a while you’ll recognise that it has profound theological implications. God moves upon the human heart - He makes the change from stone to flesh, something we are incapable of ourselves - while we are still caught up in our bondage to sin God moves… The challenge for humanity is what we believe about what God has done; God calls us to change our thinking (repent), to bring our thinking into line with the changes that He has already activated, and which the Godhead ordained before the dawn of history.

    I’m really not that interested in discussing the preference for apples or oranges. God made a bunch of fruit trees and gathers the fruit into His body because He prefers fruit salad, though there were a couple of fruits that God suggested Himself would be unhealthy for us. While it’s important to throw out the bad bits, sometimes I’ve found I’ve swallowed them, amongst the tasty morsels, before I know it and they have to be worked out through my system and (sometimes painfully) expelled from ME, before I can really recognise them. Then, paradoxically, I’m in a place to point those bad things out to others, because I love them too much to allow them to swallow poisoned fruit that will be bad for them and not because I have an inflated opinion that I’m better! In a bowl of fruit salad it’s also much harder just to pick out the bits that you’d prefer…

    Whether you’d prefer an apple or an orange, a banana or even a lemon… biblically “knowledge” is a reflection of experience not just information… I’m off to spend some time getting to know God.

    Slainte

    A Celtic Son

12. Gaz on September 5th, 2007 11:48 am

    I hear numerous evangelicals talking about “the gospel” or “the Bible” without much mention of Jesus. It seems that it’s more important to know these things rather than Jesus himself.
    Of course by knowing the gospel and the Bible we discover Jesus, but for some I know they don’t seem to have gotten this far.

13. Alan Hirsch on September 5th, 2007 7:04 pm

    Oh my goodness. The richness of the isnights here are hard to respond to. I find myself in agreement all around. What prompted this post was being among a group in Norway that was so responsive to God that if he said anything at that moment, they would do it. I find this so challenging as someone who lives so much in the mind where it it safe and controllable. I know the journey that CS talks about…both ways. But I also know I have to choose this way all the time, because left to my own devices, I will choose the controllable, objectifying, I-It, experience to the more dangerous I-Thou experience Buber so eloquently talks about. Perhaps part of the task of discipleship is this integration and part of our falleness is the lack of it.

    And I so agree about the Hebraic perspectives here…surprise, surprise! I do think of Jame’s warning here not to be just hearers of the Word, decieving ourselves, but doers of the Word.

14. Peggy on September 6th, 2007 5:53 am

    It is at these times that I appreciate the fact that it really is a blessing that I just am so inadequately educated that I cannot get stuck in the “brain” stuff…I must get out there in the “yard” and take things apart and put things together and start over now and again when things just didn’t turn out quite right….

    The “knowing” only goes so far for me if it is not closely followed with the “doing”

15. Celtic Son on September 6th, 2007 8:40 am

    Hullo-o-o

    I do wonder at times if “education” in the brain stuff becomes a place to hide when it’s uncomfortable to do the yard stuff, or when I’m just too lazy or selfish? There are days when I feel like I’d be much happier reading books and expressing my thoughts in writing, than actually sharing with another human being, encountering grief and pain, or even joy.

    Do our qualifications on paper and the fact that we describe them as “work,” simply mask the fact that we are not actually “doing”? Do I reinterpret my “information gathered about God” to mean “knowledge” because it becomes a self-justification for not “doing” anything about my neighbour’s pain, or the starving widow, or the orphaned child?

    Hidden in the comment by Peggy Brown is the revelation that the smartest thing - as you already know - is that without “doing” there is NO “knowing!” I guess there are times to rest in God and times to develop ourselves, but there are also times to play in the yard and to plant in the yard and to provide for my neighbours and to be there for my friends and to show hospitality to strangers… to “know” by “doing”

    Slainte

16. Patrick on September 6th, 2007 11:22 am

    I think of Wesley. The man was brilliant. He was extremely educated. And he kept being more educated through his life. But he was also a doer. He provoked action and movement and revival. His education, however, didn’t stay in the colleges, but was expressed outward.

    I have a friend who got her PhD in theoretical physics. She’s now a materials engineer working in nanotechnology. Why? Because she wants to make a practical difference in this world.

    Her brilliance is not turned inward to theory but she uses her education to reach outwards, to participate in a practical science.

    Like Wesley did. Or Calvin. Or Paul.

    Jesus was a brilliant scholar. The early church studied the Scriptures together daily. They studied, they learned, all within a framework of sharing life.

    Now that I brought up Jesus, that center, I start thinking of the APEST roles. What a prophet or a teacher need is grounding, understanding, a framework of learning that places their contribution within the depths of the faith. An apostle or evangelist or pastor need the constant engagement. They are people driven and focused.

    Churches and denominations have tended to congregate around one of these roles, emphasizing one over the others. Pentecostals love their prophets but don’t cotton to them learned teachers. Presbyterians thrive in learning and teaching, but a prophet upsets the orderly committee meetings and tends towards being hasty.

17. sacred vapor on September 6th, 2007 11:56 am

    good post. There certainly is a difference between the knowledge of God and knowing God. I am not in anyway saying that evangelicals don’t experience knowing God… just pointing out that the objective can sometimes overshadow the relational. We can all fall in that trap.

    vapor

18. Richard Clarke on September 6th, 2007 2:55 pm

    Lest we loose site of the point, as an evangelical non-pentie, who is now a pentie, with all the fixin’s if you please, I find that all too often, penties do the other end of the spectrum. We strive to experience God without truly developing a long-term relationship with Him. We want the power without the responsibility and character transformation, if you will. And it still does not lead to outward mission. It just puts more trendy clothes on the same old sinner…

19. jesse on September 6th, 2007 3:01 pm

    Hey Alan, thanks for your post, it’s tapped into some things I’ve been thinking/experiencing lately. A few of us baptists/uniting crew have been heading up to this Pentecostal church on monday nights and for most of us it’s quite a new experience as God moves in some mysterious ways. God is neither silent nor passive in the midst of these people who seem weird and and talk funny. There’s something scary about the notion of the Pentecostal experience, no longer can God be reduced to an understandable and manageable set of ideas (or beliefs), here He speaks into our lives allowing for the danger of the God experience as you mentioned. As much as this can seem scary though people seem to crave a genuine God experience - especially the rational bible college student-type like myself. I figure I’ve got a bit to learn from the Pentecostals.

20. Patrick on September 7th, 2007 2:07 am

    I think of Wesley. He was an immensely educated man, who continued to pursue the depths throughout his life. His early influences were folks who are still obscure such as Macarius the Egyptian (suggesting Wesley’s contribution was to re-introduce the East into the West). He bathed in the early church fathers, he pursued other languages and scholars in those languages. He was a man who could study Scripture in the original languages and write very dense prose in defense of his understanding.

    He also helped pioneer prison ministries and anti-slavery goals. Methodism was a movement to the poor and uneducated. Wesley was a thinker and a doer.

    As was Paul. He was a church planter, but thank God he was imprisoned and forced to think about and write a few things. His influence resonates much more from what he wrote than from the churches he planted (as Asia Minor isn’t exactly a thriving Christian region anymore).

    The problem with focusing on the mind, as I’ve seen it, is that it doesn’t reach out to everyone. The problem with de-emphasizing the mind and emphasizing actions is that so often it scars those who it reaches by really faulty theology.

    So there has to be a balance between Mary and Martha. Those who tend towards thinking need to get out there and act, for that shapes the thinking towards the Kingdom. Those who tend towards acting need to study and start thinking for that shapes the actions of the Kingdom. The early church lived and shared but they also studied the Scriptures daily together.

21. Peggy on September 7th, 2007 6:04 am

    One more example of why it is so very important for all of us to recognize and appreciate the diversity in the Body…it can never be either/or; it must always be both/and.

    The thinkers needs to keep their connections with the doers strong–both to help the doers learn more as well as to be reminded to apply and actual do what they are learning!

    I long for the day when the members of the Body of Christ truly choose to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ–that we might be one in mind and actions and that we might provide a more balanced and inclusive view of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to those around us!

22. Espen on September 7th, 2007 6:36 am

    Alan, I guess you’re in Bergen with Kristent Fellesskap then? It’s through them I discovered your books

23. Steve Mac on September 7th, 2007 8:38 am

    Hi guys - I guess I am one of the five pointers who needs to defend myself! However I would never dream of being called a Calvinist - other than assenting to the fact that Calvin was called the “theologian of the Holy Spirit”.
    I do like intellectual rigour but hey, one of the most amazing, perturbing, and shaping times in my life was when I went to the AOG church after my parents split up. Coming from fundy Baptist to that was a real shock - but I wanted to go to a church were God might just show up - bless some people, beat a few up, and DO something. And guess what? He did! All the crazy stuff happened to me - and I can tell you I had had no previous experience of it nor desire for it, so it certainly wasn’t my willing it. I guess the problem became after that that I was an experience junkie for a while - it HAD to be highly experiential or it wasn’t of God - which is of course nonsense. Given that most of the Old Testament has God working behind the scenes we should be careful about how we measure God’s presence and our experience of it.
    What I think is missing in most Pentecostal places now is that sense of God’s imminence. I call it Pentecostal-lite. God’s allowed to show up (bungee-jump I think Alan would call it), but he’s not allowed to go around revealing sin by words of knowledge, casting out stuff, or prophesying uncomfortable stuff that challenges us.
    I am pretty emotional even as a five-pointer! I cry over my sin, laugh with glee at the thought of the age-to-come, and get angry when I see injustice. Maybe that’s about all the emotion I can manage one week off my fortieth birthday!

24. alan hirsch on September 7th, 2007 6:13 pm

    Steve, happy birthday. Thanks for your contribution. Are you back in Oz yet?

25. Steve Mac on September 8th, 2007 1:43 am

    Hi Alan

    Thanks for the birthday greeting. Not home yet - but in eight weeks or so. Looking for some part time jobs over there in community support work and we’ll be planting some form of missional group over the next six months. Plan to spend a bit of time with Hamo picking his brain! We’re having another baby in a few months too so it’s all go.

26. jonbirch on September 11th, 2007 2:02 am

    i wonder whether evangelicalism as we know it is the way a consumerist western world christendom is bound to go, if it doesn’t recognise and heed the pitfalls of the culture it is born out of.

27. Alan Hirsch on September 11th, 2007 5:15 am

    Defintely Jon, and this applies to Pentecostalism as well…at least insofar that it has bought into church growth models. It can peddle experiences if its not careful.

28. jonbirch on September 11th, 2007 10:11 am

    got a couple of cartoons coming up about that very subject!

Leave a Reply