Externally-Motivated (EM) Christianity sees the Kingdom of God existing in systems and institutions “erected by God” or by Christians faithful to God. The essence of what it means to be a Christian dwells in hallowed monolithic icons, largely existing outside the believer. We see the expression of EM Christianity whenever we encounter Christian groups and individuals seeking to preserve or defend some aspect of the truth they see encapsulated in a system, institution, or organization.

Internally-Motivated Christianity, in sharp contrast, invests little time and energy in externalities. Its hope is not in systems and institutions because it understands that those succumb to entropic forces. To the IM Christian, the Kingdom of God cannot rest on externalities prone to decay.

He’s got me thinking… again. It all seems so clear, and what he’s saying seems to meld with other things I’ve been harping on of late. It seems to match up with different things God’s put in front of me.

At the same time, I’ve seen his description of “Internally-Motivated Christianity” used by people who would otherwise solidly fall into what Dan would consider the “EM Christianity” camp. Those sorts of folks simply use explanations like “the Kingdom of God cannot rest on externalities prone to decay” to bolster their own pet projects that are supposedly “really” worth their time and energy… but are just more institutions and organizations with varying degrees of a “Christian” veneer.

For instance: Jesus said, “on this rock I will build my [ekklesia], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, ESV). Here Jesus is speaking from a universal, eternal perspective, saying that Satan won’t win his war against the Church because the Church is being built on the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (v.16). However, time and again I’ve heard pastors claim that Jesus is saying something more like, “the gates of hell shall not get in the way of our particular congregation at this particular moment in history.” In other words, they take Jesus’ declaration that Satan will never win the war and warp it into a claim that Satan will never get a good shot in edgewise. (Tell that to the house churches in China.)

So with that disclaimer having been said, I heartily recommend Dan’s post and suggest you read it, think over it, and join the discussions in his comments section!

I’ve got this “Best Blogs You Haven’t Read” category where I recommend other blogs to you, but maybe it’s time to turn the tables on myself! So you tell me who’s missing from my Technorati favorites and why I should add ‘em. (Bonus points if you aren’t recommending your own site!) Spread the word, too: I want to hear from as many folks as I can on this one!

Rodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians that stood in stark (no pun intended) contrast to the pluralistic pagan culture of Rome. Let’s prayferfully think through these values and match them to the witness of our own churches. Do we see the city existing for us or do we see our church and our lives existing for the city? (David Fairchild, 10 Marks of the Early Church)

This is an interesting post! What I want to know is this: which of the 10 values listed in the post are exemplified in your local church… and why aren’t the others? (HT: JollyBlogger.)

I believe when we encounter the Lord in this way we should do the following:

• Confess any known sin.
• Ask the Spirit to search our hearts for hidden sin.
• Confess hidden sin when He reveals it.
• Praise Him for revealing sin in our lives.
• Praise Him for who He is.
• Ask Him to prepare us for what we might receive from Him.
• Ask Him to fill us with Himself, His gifts, and His direction.
• Thank Him for meeting those needs.
• Ask Him to transform our lives so that we are better able to serve him, so we leave the church with a greater revelation of Him to share with the community of faith and those still outside the flock.
• Thank Him and praise Him again.

I think if we take these ten steps in the presence of the Lord, He’ll bless us so much more than if we simply bask in Him then leave unchanged after the encounter.

(Source: “When the Spirit Falls,” Cerulean Sanctum)

…and now Scott Morgan:

Like my laptop, the issue is my internal compatibility with Him. Periodically, I need to run some diagnostic questions to check and see if there’s any interference. I ask questions like these…

• What are my motives right now?
• Have I confessed known sin in my life?
• Am I operating out of fear?
• What am I thinking about? Is it true and right and good?
• Am I trusting God in this situation?
• Am I obeying what I know God wants me to do?

This is what King David was dealing with when he prayed, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23-24, NIV).

Thankfully, our prayer connection can be reestablished when we draw near to God.

(Source: “Connectivity Troubles,” Scott’s Bible Blog)

And they both used unordered lists. That’s the creepiest thing about it.

Chris Giarrusso (of Bullpen Bits fame) got back from this year’s San Diego Comicon and posted what future generations will assuredly consider the penultimate ‘con report — check it out!

I thought of something. Here’s a link to one of his favorite meals, White Chili, on my good friend Tammy’s blog. You can think about that for a few minutes while I think of something worth writing now that the baby’s alseep.

The House of Degenhart » You May Be Right…

When ill-behaved children lose an argument, they say “SO WHAT!” or “Oh yeah? Well you’ve got a big nose!” Grown-ups say, “You may be right, but in the grand scheme of things your solution would represent a misallocaiton of resources.” Christian grown-ups say, “Yeah, but what’s really important is telling people about Jesus.” You know Jesus – he’s apparently the guy that doesn’t really care about the truth very much, or how people live their lives, so long as people sing happy clappy songs about him and don’t judge each other.

Pyromaniacs: How to deal with posts you don’t like—and the flip side

I’ve noticed a pan-internetal phenomenon you’ll all recognize. It’s how different people deal differently with posts, articles, essays they don’t like. (Now, I suppose I have to add “and pictures.“)

You can not like a post for many reasons, reasons which will vary in part due to the post’s content, and in part due to where you are, spiritually, intellectually, temperamentally, and time-wise (schedualically?).

Maybe the post in question is really stupid. Maybe it’s palpably wrong. Maybe it’s wrong and stupid.

JOLLYBLOGGER: Fathers do not exasperate your children

“Do not be harsh with your children but be gentle.” So this writer does not exhort fathers to exercise their authority. Instead, he presupposes that authority and then sets the bounds for its use. He also presupposes that children are not just property over whom the father has legal rights. They are owed dignity as human beings in their own right.

Challies Dot Com: The Tyranny of Quiet Time

Johnson wrote about something I had only recently realized myself. “That half hour every morning of Scriptural study and prayer is not actually commanded in the Bible.” Imagine that. He goes on to say, “As a theologian, I can remind us that to bind the conscience where Scripture leaves freedom is a very, very serious crime. It’s legalism rearing its ugly little head again. We’ve become legalistic about a legalistic command. This is serious.” We have somehow allowed our quiet time, in its length, depth or consistency, to become the measure of our relationship with God. But “your relationship with God—or, as I prefer to say, God’s relationship with you—is your whole life: your job, your family, your sleep, your play, your relationships, your driving, your everything. The real irony here is that we’ve become accustomed to pigeonholing our entire relationship with God into a brief devotional exercise that is not even commanded in the Bible.” So what, then, does Scripture command? It commands that the Word of God be constantly upon our hearts. We are to pray, to read the Scripture and to meditate upon it, but we are to do so from a joyful desire, and not mere performance-based duty. We are to do so throughout our whole lives, and not merely for a few minutes each morning. Like Johnson, I came to realize that the “goal isn’t that we pray and read the Bible less, but that we do so more–and with a free and needy heart.”

So do not allow quiet time to become performance. View it as a chance to grow in grace. Begin with an expression of your dependency upon God’s grace, and end with an affirmation of His grace. Acknowledge that you have no right to approach God directly, but can approach Him only through the work of His Son. Focus on the gospel as the message of grace that both saves and sustains. And allow quiet time to become a gift of worship you present to God, and a gift of grace you receive from Him.

…because she never comments here anymore. (Courtesy of Cute Overload.)

Adrian used the phrase “if you break one Commandment, you break them all”. Apparently God has a zero tolerance policy where sin is concerned. One strike and you’re out. It is the proverbial “no win” situation. Except, that is, if you accept Christ, then it becomes a no lose situation.

To me this sounds like the proverbial “gift horse”, the one that you shouldn’t look in the mouth. Yet I can’t help but look it in the mouth, because of that other proverb about gifts: “If something seems too good to be true, it probably is”. I would say that this guilt-free promise of salvation is the quintessential “too good to be true” idea. Yet who am I to pooh-pooh such an offer. This isn’t a TV ad, it is supposedly coming from God himself. What do I have to lose, right?

[snip]

But if I were to argue against Adrian’s position above, derived from Romans 8, that only a turn to Christ in the spirit will bring salvation, from a Biblical standpoint, I would invoke Matthew 31-46:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

If good works held no influence on salvation, then this passage makes no sense. Clearly Jesus is telling his followers here to look for him “in the flesh”, not in the spirit. Those of his followers who looked to him but not to the opportunities to help their fellow man, even if it means taking their eyes off of him, will not be saved. Jesus is not making a distinction between the spirit and the flesh, but is saying that the two are one.

Well met! I like how you think, Mister Duck!

As to the “break one, break ‘em all” bit, that comes straight out of the Epistle of James, chapter 2:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.”

And while we Christians love to play Scriptural soundbites, doing so usually requires ignoring the context (ironically, Adrian just posted something along these lines). In this particular passage, James is saying that it does no good to say you’re righteous because you follow your “pet commandments” if you’re ignoring the parts of the Law you don’t think are worth your time and effort. (In this particular case, James’ audience thought they were pretty tight with God because they were obeying Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” — only problem was, they only did that if their neighbor was filthy-stinkin’ rich.)

James isn’t saying that the same degree of eternal punishment awaits the serial shoplifter and the serial rapist. He’s saying that neither one can claim to be a Law-abiding citizen, and neither one respects the Lawgiver.

And that, perhaps, ties into your frustration with the “get-out-of-Hell-free card” mindset. People who have been saved from God’s wrath and set free from the power of sin will at times still sin; the difference is that they love the Lawgiver, and the Lawgiver Himself has established an unbreakable covenant that He will purify them of all unlawfullness — not just as a matter of propitiation (transferring their guilt to Jesus Christ), but He will really and truly conform them into Righteous people.

But the question must be asked, “is righteousness primarily adherence to an external code, or your motive(s) for adhering to that code?” A person can begrudgingly obey when there’s no conceivable alternative (much like your postmortem dangling-over-the-pit-of-Hell illustration), but that doesn’t mean they find any beauty or delight in who or what they’re obeying. The Scriptures draw a distinction between the two, and call one “righteousness” and the other “legalism.” The external Law is good, but ineffective on its own. Only when our hearts are rewired to obey the Law because of our love for the Lawgiver will we be considered righteous by Jesus’, James’ and Paul’s standard.

“If you believe that the holy appointment to preach is the most important function of the leader, Paul has let you down so far. He has not just let you down, but he has left you swinging in the breeze! Of the first two chapters, only in two places has he even vaguely called for doctrine, much less preaching. In verse 1:9-11, Paul has recommended that doctrine be used to shut up gainsayers – hardly what I would call a Sunday sermon. In 2:15, Paul calls Titus to speak ‘these things,’ but ‘those things’ were that people should live with high character and sound works.

“Paul has yet to lay ‘feed Christ’s sheep’ on Titus. He keeps talking about caring for people, and teaching them to care for each other.”

Thus we are introduced to the final post in Codepoke’s study on Church Leadership based on Paul’s Epistle to Titus. Here’s a quick summary of the posts, if you haven’t read them already:

1. Titus and the things that matter in a leader (Titus 1) />“First, Paul was willing to leave Crete without appointing elders. …second, a church should not live without elders for long. …third, Paul has a term for leaders in the church – old men.”
2. Titus and responsibilities (Titus 2) />“Paul does not tell Titus to give the Cretans sound doctrine. Titus is to teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. The Cretans appear to have enough sound doctrine. They need no more. Now, they need to know the things that spring from sound doctrine.”
3. Intermission (Titus 3:12-15) />“No time last night to write on Titus 3, but I had enough time to put together a quick word about the last 4 verses of the book.”
4. Titus and the tone of the church (Titus 3:9-11) />“In the proportion that Paul gives it in his letter to Titus, preaching is a glorious and wonderful thing. Preaching should be a wonderfully important 1/46th of our total Christian experience in the church. And preaching should lead to people devoting themselves to doing what is good.”

For an ecclesiastical egalitarian, Kevin’s alright.

Laurie Reyes (Ordinary Mother) just recommended Seeing the Gospel in all things, a post from Mark Lauterbach’s blog, GospelDrivenLife. I read it, I liked it, and I so I thought I’d pass along the recommendation:

“…when God speaks of the places where he was faithful, he develops the details. When God writes about the places of failure, he speaks of his care and not their sin. He made this point — God is forgetful of our sins. He does not summarize our lives as those moments of great transgression on our part. In our self-righteousness we make a monument to our sins and live in endless regret of them. In our pride, we make monuments to others sins and remind them of them. But God records his gracious care of us in our sin so that we see his mercy and not our evil.”

Mr. Lauterbach is the senior pastor of Grace Church in San Diego, CA. Laurie’s husband, Jason, is a pastor at Chesapeake Community Church in Joppa, MD. If only both were bloggers…

• Throwing Mark Driscoll Under the Bus (JollyBlogger)
• Driscoll-gate – Scandal or Witch Hunt? (Adrian Warnock)
• Bruised Reeds, Smoldering Wicks (Dan Edelen)

All three are thoughtful, grace-filled approaches to the issue.

Personally, I don’t really go for the cussing, but I think there’s far more serious issues being glossed over in the Church, and I really don’t see anything wrong with Driscoll’s (quoted) advice. I think that was probably far more helpful to the guy than any soft-spoken (read: girly) response could have been. I mean, there’s gentleness… and then there’s being a pansy. I think we need to treat men like men, and sometimes that means sounding “harsh.”

New Attitude is back, and they’re blogging live from the conference! I think that’s just cool. (HT: Adrian Warnock.) It looks like a pretty nice conference; I guess I’ll have to get the session CDs once they’re made available.

In addition to the official blog, Carolyn McCulley, Jenn Romanski and Brent Thomas are liveblogging the event.

However, in a shocking turn of events, it was revealed to attendees that C.J. Mahaney stepped down as senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD in order to prepare for his starring role in next season’s new sci-fi series, Stargate: T4G. Mahaney will reprise his role as Jean Luc Picard, a 24th century starship captain sent 300 years in the past to lead a 21st century ragtag special ops crew into the Delta Quadrant to prevent the rise of an alien race known as the Borg. (And if you don’t believe me, ask Agnax, whose post I discovered while typing this!)

Last week, Laurie Reyes was mentioned in Tim Challies’ A La Carte sidebar… this week, she gets even more digital ink this week in girl talk: A Tribute to Daryl Cannon:

“This year, I don�t honor my mother for how she has served those who come behind her; I honor her for serving those who have gone before her. My mother�s world changed dramatically last year. In one year, my parents flew back and forth to Las Vegas and New Orleans many times to attend to ill parents. In April of 2005, my mother�s mom died and just three days later my father�s dad died. Just four months later, the flood in New Orleans resulted in my parents taking in my grandmother Cannon as well as my severely mentally handicapped Aunt. My mother was to be the primary caregiver for both. Yet in a whirlwind of airplanes, memorial services, floods, and hospitals my mother stayed the course of humble servant-hood.”

I’ve been both humbled and encouraged while watching the Cannons respond so faithfully to the challenges they’ve faced this past year. It speaks volumes to a guy like me when I see my pastor making such real sacrifices to care for those in need around him. Jim and Daryl are a wonderful testimony to Jesus Christ’s sacrificial love, and I’m honored to have them as my pastor (and my pastor’s wife)!

1. If you’re not talking about Jesus, you’re wrong.
2. If you define a sin in such a way that it can’t possibly apply to you, you’re wrong.
3. If your doctrine leads you to cut yourself off from everyone but like 9 others, you’re wrong.
4. If your theology excuses you from doing something God commanded, you’re wrong.
5. If you believe in a way that allows you to inflict or ignore others’ suffering, you’re wrong.
6. If you’re talking about how thankful you are that you’re better than those jerks, you’re wrong.
7. If your case relies entirely on citation of authority, you’re wrong.
8. If you can’t defend your belief without lying about what it is, you’re wrong.
9. If you say you believe something and qualify the hell out of it, you’re wrong.
10. If your version of the Gospel isn’t actually good news, you’re wrong.

(HT: iMonk.)

“A U.S. Senate subcommittee report estimated that if every Christian family would only take care of its own, the federal dole would decrease a full 30 percent. If every church would then take care of its own, the dole would decrease another 12 percent. And then, if each of those churches would provide a sponsoring family to exercise charity to a single outsider, the federal dole could be eliminated completely. Just like that.”

Chad Degenhart, If We Only Took Care Of Our Own

“You know what they say: follow the money. And there’s lots of it coming from churches trying to match audio/video wits with MTV, concerts and TV. So the big guys have gotten involved. Here’s proof…”

Mike Atkinson (at Church Marketing Sucks), Is Jesus the Next Killer App?

I’m subscribed to feeds at both sites cited above, and I read both of these entries this morning, one right after the other. I was surprised by the sharp contrast between the two, and it’s got me thinking (again) about how congregations spend their money, and what that tells the people around us about Jesus. Which is your congregation putting more effort (and money) into becoming: the church that takes care of their own, or the local entertainment pavilion?

“So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

(ESV)

It’s easy to lay the blame on the congregation as a whole… but God won’t let us get away with that. Which of the two paths am I walking down: sacrifice and service, or fame and flash and spectacle? Which is master of my heart: Jesus Christ or money and possessions?

Or put another way: when I find myself with some extra money in hand, what do I immediately want to do with it? What “wishes” do I think of fulfilling? And since good intentions are only part of the picture, what do I end up doing with my newfound wealth? I’m not sure many of us could honestly answer these questions without showing just how un-Christlike we are.

Nicole and I got some early Christmas money, and one of the things we got was his latest album, Amusing. He seems to be leaving folk behind for more of a jazzy sound… and listening to this album, one would think the guy’s become attached… but you never know with the man who writes about lazy flies and angel feathers.

But can they really be called Puritans? Yes, they eschew certain pleasures; yes, they want others to do so as well… but the article is clearly playing off of the modern Puritanical stereotype, rather than what the Puritans really were.

In fact, just yesterday I passed along to David Gerstein a page about John Winthrop, which summarizes the “Puritan Distinctives” this way:

The Puritans’ devotion manifested itself in three important ways.

First, they believed that man should be in the world but not of the world. The believer’s true home is not on earth but in heaven, so he must be careful not to lose his heart to the all the things that this world has to offer–pleasures, material wealth, achievement, human love, and so on. On the other hand, the goodness of the things that God created should not be denied. There is nothing wrong with enjoying good food, music, love for your spouse, sports or recreation–as long as you don’t become frivolous and crowd God out your heart.

Second, they believed that man has a duty to use to the fullest extent all of the talents and abilities that God has given him. They were strong supporters of education. They worked hard in their professions and became doctors, lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and statesmen. They didn’t believe in doing anything halfheartedly. If something was worth doing, then the man should do it with his best effort for the glory of God.

The third conviction that made the Puritans unique was their belief that God’s covenant promises in the Old Testament did not just apply to ancient Israel, but to every society and every generation. These promises are well summarized in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If any nation observed God’s laws and commands, God would give protection, prosperity, and the spiritual blessings of knowing him and living as his people. On the other hand, if a people rejected God’s decrees and turned to idolatry and sin, God would eventually reject them. The Puritans of seventeenth-century England were greatly concerned about the future of their nation; they saw the corruption of government and church officials, growing immorality, materialism, and lack of concern for the poor as signs that their nation would either have to repent or experience the cleansing fire of God’s wrath.

Why do the Puritans have such a bad reputation in modern times? [...] I believe the fundamental reason why the twentieth century looks down on the Puritans is that the secular mind cannot understand the satisfaction and joy that comes from serving God wholeheartedly. [...] Much of the modern criticism of Puritans stems from the American appetite for over-indulgence. It also stems from the fact that to those who have no hope in heaven, this world is all there is.

First and foremost, being a Puritan is about the supremacy of God. God is the “chief end,” the “be all and end all” of life. Thus, a Puritan will pass on things like getting drunk, sleeping around, cheating on his tax return, etc., because he knows those actions to be at odds with living a life dedicated to savoring and trumpeting the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ. No other motive leads to Puritanism.

I have some good news, though: there is a new generation of Puritans rising up. You won’t find them slashing SUV tires, though. You’ll find them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.

Like my earlier post listing former cronies from Littlestown Chapel’s high school ministry, Actual Reality, Nicole has started a list at her “Little Christian Musings” blog, titled Cornerstone Bloggers. I’ve got everyone’s RSS feeds set up in Thunderbird, so I won’t miss a thing.

Unless, of course, someone posts something with Microsoft Office’s “<o:p>” tags embedded in it. Because of that, I’ve got to manually check Joanna’s blog, The Shadow Proves the Sunshine, which just isn’t right. Yet another reason to despise M$.

Speaking of which, our home PC runs Windows ME… and I’ve been trying to find a Linux alternative that Nicole would be happy with. I’ve downloaded Ubuntu and I’ll see if she likes it. The main problem is that our current ISP only offers access for Windows machines. (Guess I’ll have to finally ditch this Compuserve-branded crap and get a real ISP… oh darn.) =|

In other news, I’m thinking of taking Jakob Neilsen’s recent advice to bloggers and compiling a sidebar list of “must-read” entries. The one area where I prefer LiveJournal to Blogger is that LJ’s archives are entry-based: it’s always “previous 20 entries” rather than “August 2005.” I think I’ll add “Actual Reality: Where are they now?,” if only to make it easier for me to access. (I’ve found a couple more of ‘em on Xanga, for instance, but haven’t had the time to add them to the list.)

That’s my darling wife right there. I tell ya, it’s stuff like this that I find so endearing. How could I not love a woman who’s an endless source of quotable quotes?

The main reason that men are not in church is that they simply are not seeing the Holy Spirit move in power. At the risk of alienating the many women who read Cerulean Sanctum, I want to make a bold point: even if the Holy Spirit were not present in a supernatural way in our churches, I still believe women would still show up on Sundays. The Church has no problem attracting women because women are naturally drawn to the community and relationships that a church provides. However, this attractor does not work for many men. Men need a profound experience of God in order to get them to sit up and take notice. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t fall on them in power, then the positives a church can provide outside of the supernatural make little difference. A church can hypermasculinize itself to death and still not break that three women to every two men ratio if the Spirit is barely discernible on Sundays. Men have a better built-in B.S. detector than women do and function more out of the rationale of “prove it to me.” Without the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit in our gatherings, we have little to combat a set of crossed arms and a raised eyebrow.

[...]

I believe that the reason the message of Eldredge and Morrow resonates with many men is that those men can’t put a finger on what they are truly missing. If you’ve never tasted champagne, why would you miss it? In this way, if our churches gatherings are not filled with the Holy Spirit and our churches are not speaking to the one thing we still use to define a man, then the loss of both cannot be fully appreciated by the man who feels empty after the church service is over. All he knows is “Well, that wasn’t it.” So he goes off to hunt bear with a pointy stick or to climb mountains like Eldredge says. And while that might captivate him for a while, it does not fill the vacuum in his soul. His expectation then becomes that of simply muddling through the day.

And to that, I give a hearty, “AMEN!” Drop the fluffy crap and gimme the real stuff!

EDIT: Dan Edelen graciously (and almost too subtly) pointed out in his comment that I didn’t give search-engine-friendly credit for the quote from his post “Another Look at the Church’s Missing Men” on his blog Cerulean Sanctum. I’ve been an RSS subscriber to CS for six months now, and I’ve been greatly edified by his thoughtful posts. The last thing I want is for people to not be able to track him down! Dan, this edit’s for you!

Mormons take missions very seriously and most dedicate at least two full years of their life serving in the mission field. If the 1 billion Christians in the world did like wise, each person would only need to share the Gospel with 5 people.

What an amazing point! I never thought of it that way…

…and Congratulations to Joshua and Tammy (and friends) on their entrance into the world of blogging!

That was a few years ago, and I’ve lost touch with most of the gang. So the other day, I started Googling them, and here’s my “reunion list” so far:

• Aaron Greene: [Blogger]
• Rebecca Greene: Waynesburg FCA
  | [Xanga]
• Kim Kelley: [Xanga]
• Audrey Morgan: [Xanga]
• Jen Rhodes: [Xanga]
• Holly-Beth Smith: [Xanga]
• Josh Stratton: Littlestown Chapel
• Nick Upchurch: [Geocities] | [Livejournal] | [Flickr]

If anyone can add to the list, please do!