CS,

Thank you for letting me know that my changed life means nothing. All the healing I’ve received clearly must be in my imagination.

MCW

Peter:

“Changed lives does not necessarily = “feelings”. You made a bit of a logical leap to make your assertion.”

Please go back and reread my post.  I addressed the one topic of the “changed lives” comment first, then moved on and addressed the topic of “feelings” second.  I separated the two because they should not be lumped together.

Also, did you take a look at that article that I recommended about changed lives being the focus of churches?  It had some interesting insight. 

Mandy:

I understand your emotions here.  It’s easy to perceive that someone may be speaking directly about you instead of in generalities when we discuss things in this forum.  Instead, please take a look (objectively) at my comments, such as the question about Ephesians and Collossians, and let me know what you think.

--
CS

CS, I would also say you are arguing form absence.  You are assuming something about the church based upon what is not said.  If you are not you are communicating that you are.  I doubt anyone at Kinetic only measures their church by feelings and not the word being faithfully taught.  I would also say that changed life is a huge measurement for the church.  Changed lives alone?  No but certainly changed lives.  This is what we call redemption.

Try not to look for arguments where none exist.

Peter and Leonard:

“Nobody mentioned feelings except you, right?”

No, Mandy/MCW was the one who brought up feelings.  She was using them in a list of things justifying Kinetic church, saying that we could not judge her church until we experienced it. 

She said, “When we meet for Worship, God is there. You can feel His presence in that theater like a thick morning mist. He is there and He is alive. Don’t judge us until you come and experience it for yourself.”

So, by her statement, the experiential factor of feelings is one of the credentials in evaluating Kinetic Church.  Her church is good because of the feelings, and we cannot talk about it until we go there and feel it ourselves.  I said that feelings should not be used as the barometer for the church’s validity, and that objective measurements have to be used.

All of this was in the midst of the larger post, talking about changed lives and such.  But, somehow that all got mixed up as people read through the threads.

Moving on…

--
CS

Peter:

“You can indeed, not judge her church till you experience it.”

I know this will come out snooty, and I apologize for this, since it’s one of those questions that are hard to soften.

What verse says that?

When is experiencing a church a requisite for making a decision about it?  I know, based upon videos and things in the press, for instance, that Doug Pagitt’s church, Solomon’s Porch, has bad teaching and doctrine, and can say that it is heretical.  But, I’ve never had to travel to the city in which it is located or sit through a service there.

--
CS

To the Kinetic members who have logged in –

I hope you hear from most of the posters here that we affirm what we hear from you about your church and are praising the Lord with you for the work He has done through your ministry.  Those of us who bristle at the term “ballsy” still appreciate many things about your church. 

Still, I have not heard any Kinetic member explain how billboards that say sarcastic things like “enjoying our communion trays?” or “ever worry about lightening strikes?” are designed to reach the unchurched and encourage them to check out your church.  There is something wrong about trying to make the thieves squirm, in light of Jesus’ words “if your enemy takes your shirt, give him your coat . . . if he takes your trailer, give him your car too”

Wendi

AM:

You’re right.  On some of these threads I have come off as a bit blunt in my delivery, or sharp in my reply.  And this is something on which I have honestly been working and repenting.

At the same time, my fire is ignited when I see those in the faith (or who profess to be in the faith), who are doing actions that are detrimental, destructive, or counter to the faith.  And we have to stand in these areas and call out those who are doing harm to Christianity, who lead the lost and our brothers and sisters astray.  We cannot waver here.

If you have any practical insights on how to balance both, please do let me know.  I would love to hear any strategies on showing compassion, yet rebuking error.

--
CS

CS –

I don’t find you hateful either, and we too generally disagree. 

However, I need to take issue with one element of your last comment.  When you say things like . . .

[At the same time, my fire is ignited when I see those in the faith (or who profess to be in the faith)]

. . . you are indicating that you question the genuineness of someone’s Christianity.  On this thread, who are you claiming is only “professing faith” instead of being “in the faith”?  Pastor Dave and his supporters from Kinetic Church for using the word “ballsy”?  The MMI posters who disagreed with you?

When I read these kind of comments, I agree with AM, you are clanging like a cymbal. 

Wendi

Peter and Wendi:

Thank you for putting my mind at ease a little.  I know I come across as stern at times, and I am grateful that you don’t perceive my fastidiousness as hateful.  I’m still working out the bugs with my tone of voice, and know that I do have some places where the Lord is straightening me out.  =)

Wendi:

“. . . you are indicating that you question the genuineness of someone’s Christianity.  On this thread, who are you claiming is only “professing faith” instead of being “in the faith”?  Pastor Dave and his supporters from Kinetic Church for using the word “ballsy”?  The MMI posters who disagreed with you?”

I am not questioning the faith of anyone in this thread at all.  That would be wrong.  I have no evidence to the contrary, and believe by default that Pastor Dave and his supporters are soundly saved.  I disagreed with their methods, nothing more.  Likewise for people on MMI who have different opinions on this subject, too.

Now, on other threads, like the one ongoing about the Dalai Lama, however, I did call out some people, for instance…

Daniel:

“Let’s not be so quick to dismiss feeling the presence of God when a church meets, I’d much rather a church “feel” the presence of God than not. “

I think we’d all like to be in churches where we can feel God’s presence.  I know that I have felt His presence at times throughout my life.  But, if we trust our feelings as a measurement for judging the content of the church, and exclude things like doctrine and theology, we run into problems.

For instance, I’ve been in churches where I’ve seen people bounding up and down the aisles, full of passion, crying and shouting that they can feel the power of the Lord.  But then the sermons were an absolute train wreck and when asked to describe their theology, it had nothing to do with Christianity.

Similarly, the Mormons tell potential converts to test if the Book of Mormon is true not by comparing it to historical, Biblical, or archaeological records, but by asking God to create a sensation of, “a burning in the bosom.” And most of their followers swear by this sensation.  But their faith is totally false.

It’s not nit-picking to tell people to be concerned about their stances on how they evaluate their churches, and to keep their feelings in check with teaching, doctrine, and the Bible.  Especially when we’re told that we can’t judge it until we’ve felt the same things, too.

--
CS

I’m with Wendi on this one. 

I love the idea and effort of reaching out with forgiveness and love and to the one who not only sinned but did such hurt and damage to your church.  I think using a billboard, the web, & YouTube as a means to try to reach out to such an individual(s) is a wonderful spirit of and witness for Christ - at least in principle.

However, I gotta say that to me those billboards (see the others Andy graciously provided a link for) to me leave more of an impression of bitterness, anger and a desire to somehow get back (through humiliation or guilt) than love, forgiveness or a desire to help and minister.  In NO way am I presuming or accusing that of being kinetics real intent (I have no way of judging such).  I AM saying that seems to be more the effect - at least of the billboards as they were done. 

Even the video I wonder (though I don’t pretend to have the answer) about the specific strategy within the video (viz. please take initiative to meet personally).  I don’t see anything wrong with it, I just wonder is it the most effective way to try to use this incident to minister to this individual?

Is there another way that may be more effective?  Should the gospel itself have been shared in the video (I would tend to think so)?  Would an offer to return the stuff without repercussions be a helpful way of restoration or come off as making the rest seem an insincere method to reclaim ‘stuff’?

Are there others reading this blog who have perhaps dealt with a similar situation?  If so, how did you/your church deal with it and what were the results?

why are people more concerned about them using the word ballsy than excited that they are sending an incredible message to a world full of misguided people?

May we be creative in reaching the ‘not already convinced.”