The CAUSE of the Controversy

This month, we are covering a seemingly simple concept that has powerful, revelatory, and wide ranging applications: Right-Right vs Right-Wrong.

This week's story is in five parts and covers almost fifty years of the latest church history. Today's post is the fifth and concluding part to this week's story. Please make sure you have read the previous parts of this week's story. The first post in this week's story was: Always AND Completely.

In the previous post we saw that:

In 1961, AW Tozer warned the church not to "go into eclipse" by having the wrong answer to "What is God like?" Five years later, the "God is Dead" movement challenged the church to explain "What is God like?" Forty years ago, the church's response was THE WILDEST RATIONALIZATION:

"It is Right to NOT be able to state the HOW and WHY supporting our Christian beliefs (WHAT)"

...which eventually becomes: "It is Wrong to state the HOW and WHY supporting our Christian beliefs (WHAT)".

Forty years ago, the church consciously chose to embrace The Godless Christianity Movement.

After twenty years, Calvinism seized this opportunity and became THE MAIN DOCTRINE of today's church.

More than fifteen years ago, I noticed MOST Christians could not explain WHY they believed WHAT they believed. I have spent that time determining the non-contradictory Model for God so that Christians and the church could reclaim their rightful places. Instead of being embraced, "Modeling God" has been actively attacked for stating the non-contradictory HOW and WHY behind the WHAT of orthodox Christianity...BECAUSE MOST Christians truly believe THE WILDEST RATIONALIZATION!

The result is that today there is NO STATISTICAL difference between people who attend church and people who don't attend church. Actually, the data seems to show that church actually hinders the individual's ability to live a Godly and sanctified life...it seems to hinder peoples' ability to help others!

However, I have seen the information in "Modeling God" intentionally help people hear from God more clearly and more often...it supplies the Right HOW/WHY behind the Right WHAT (belief).

And during the same time, I have learned a specific aspect of Human Nature that is the CAUSE of all this controversy with "Modeling God"...and few people discuss this CAUSE...today, we will identify this CAUSE.


THE CONTROVERSY
In November of 2005, a friend asked me to meet with the pastor of a new church she had been attending to see if it was doctrinally sound. I met with this Emergent Pastor and he told me the story of his Emergent Church. Here are the highlights:

-The church had begun in September of 2005.
-His focus was on the sub-30 year olds
-He had been on the staff of the Traditional Church working with the high school and college aged groups.
-He wanted to help people have a REAL experience with God (one that didn't involve "programs and putting on a show").
-They met Sunday mornings in a bar.
-There were about 60 people attending the church.

The Emergent Pastor convinced me that he wanted people to truly exhibit Christian behavior. He wanted to help people love, forgive, value uniqueness and not judge, grow, understand God more, etc. These are behaviors the Emergent Pastor didn't think the Traditional Pastor was able to teach the Traditional congregation.

After this meeting, I began attending the Emergent Church. By January, I was having lunch on a weekly basis with the Emergent Pastor and sometimes helping him with his sermons. I had given him the manuscript to "Modeling God" and he stated he liked what he had read.

In February, he asked me to co-preach a sermon with him. I did. He told me the response was great enough that I should teach a Sunday night class on some of the concepts in my manuscript.

The next Sunday I did a "commercial" for the Sunday night study using the "Henderson 4000"...an example of how we wouldn't believe EFFECTS someone told unless they could explain the CAUSES in specific terms. In a church of about 100 people, we had 20 people show up for the first study. We did studies every Sunday night for two months. The group peaked out at 50 people. The church peaked out at 225 people during this time.


THE MENTEE
One of the reasons both groups grew was that also in February 2006, the Emergent Pastor asked me to mentor one of the founders of the Emergent Church. Three guys started the Emergent Church...they were roughly 20, 30, and 40 years old. They had all attended the Traditional Church and had a relationship with the Emergent Pastor when he worked at the Traditional Church. One worked in the nursery. One was a missionary. The person I mentored had a pretty rough background and was the son of a pastor. He had a lot of Bible knowledge but none of it made sense.

I began meeting with him every Saturday morning and we went through the manuscript for "Modeling God". He made a lot of corrections and gave me a lot of great ideas. He began growing by leaps and bounds. It was like all the Bible information he had was "data" that lacked a "software program" to access all the information in an intentional and orderly fashion so that it could be applied to his life...and he could reach out effectively to people he knew who weren't going to the Emergent Church.

"Modeling God" brought a structure to the Bible information he already had...so it appeared that "Modeling God" had made ALL the difference in a short time, when in reality, it just organized all the information he already had but couldn't access efficiently and effectively. However, this seemingly immediate change caused people to want to learn the material...

In April of 2006, Jay Bakker came to the Emergent Church. His visit was documented in the premiere episode of Sundance Channel's mini-series called "One Punk Under God". The Emergent Pastor had introduced the mentee to Jay Bakker years ago. In fact, Jay Bakker was a key influence years ago in helping the mentee stop a lot of his destructive behavior. When Jay visited, he commented several times from the pulpit about the growth that he had seen in the mentee.


DIVISION
When Jay left, the church began to split into three seemingly equal groups. There was one group who wanted to learn the material from "Modeling God", so additional studies were created that were taught by my friend who got me involved with the Emergent Church. There was one group who was adamantly against this material, but wouldn't talk directly to anyone teaching the material. Then there was the final group who either didn't know or didn't care about the material either way.

The Emergent Pastor decided the church had grown big enough, so he declared that we would be "taking the summer off". There would still be Sunday morning service, however, nothing else. For instance, no Sunday night studies. The pastor also stopped meeting with me for lunch and asking for help with his sermons. Over the next three months, people who weren't adamantly for or against the material left. They stated they were no longer getting fed by the Emergent Pastor. The church was now 2/3rds the size.

That summer, the mentee began having small gatherings (three to four nights a week) at his house. He wanted to teach the material and he wanted to help everyone he knew experience the growth he'd experienced. People who were against the material began to slander me, the mentee, and my friend. They also worked on the mentee's wife. By fall, the mentee stopped having his gatherings at his house...and the attendance at the church continued to slide to about 1/2 the size.

A group of about eight of us left the Emergent Church at the end of 2006. (There were more than a hundred people left.) Most of the people that were left participated in actively slandering us to others, whether they intended to or not. The Emergent Pastor was confronted by the mentee, yet the Emergent Pastor (and his wife) continued to spread stories that were factually incorrect AND, at a minimum, did not discourage others from doing the same.

This Emergent Pastor and Emergent Church had claimed to be about love, forgiveness, agreeing to disagree, not judging, etc., yet, they were unable to demonstrate ANY of these characteristics. On the other hand, though we were being unjustly attacked, we responded in all the ways that Jesus told us to do in the Gospels.

What happened?

How could a group of people who claimed to want to have an experience with God, love, forgive, have community, value uniqueness, etc., intentionally attack a group of people who were not only able to do these things (WHAT), but also knew HOW to intentionally help others do these things by teaching the WHY?

A year later, when the church continued to split, around a dozen of these people came in contact with the pastor who wrote the refutation of "Modeling God" before he published it. In fact, he stated that part of the reason he published the refutation was because of all the damage "Modeling God" did to these people!

In the last year, these people and church have continued to fragment to the point that few of them even talk to each other! The Emergent Church has split many more times and in many more pieces years after we left the Emergent Church. The pastor who wrote the refutation recently tried to contact these people to have them write negative testimonials about me on his recently updated website. NONE of them participated...

What happened?

1) Why were these people mad when we could show people HOW to exhibit Christian behavior by giving the WHY?

2) Then, years later, why were these people unwilling to talk about their behavior from the past two years?


THE ANSWER
In the last month, one of the people who was against this information two years ago, actually sat down to talk with me. She has been reading "Modeling God" and growing TREMENDOUSLY. What she taught me explained EVERYTHING...

She said that when the Emergent Church first started, a lot of the people who attended were in their late teens and early 20's (like her) and loved going to the church. Why? Because they could get drunk on Saturday night, go to church Sunday morning, and take a guilt-free nap on Sunday afternoon.

They knew the church wasn't helping them grow, but as long as the church stated it wanted to help them grow, then it counted as church. (Remember the April 2009 Newsweek article?) So even if the church didn't help them with their problems, they didn't need to feel guilty about their problems (especially the ones they caused) because they had tried to get help by going to church.

While most churches operate this way, the Emergent Church wasn't going to judge them...so they were able to convince themselves not to feel guilty about Saturday night WITHOUT having anyone confront them. They could get all of the "benefit" and NOT feel guilty about their lack of responsibility.

Recently, churches like the Traditional Church are telling their congregation to welcome the younger crowd ("millennials") into their church by not judging them and not talking politics. The Traditional Church is trying to become the Emergent Church!

Actually, they are the same church...because both congregations have the same goal: to be unintentional and not feel guilty about it! Notice, being unintentional is distinguished by having NO HOW/WHY...which is the same as a Wrong HOW/WHY. THAT is the answer to the cause of the controversy surrounding "Modeling God"!

1) Why were these people mad when we could show people HOW to exhibit Christian behavior by giving the WHY?

Because they didn't want to be intentional (think about their HOW/WHY). They wanted to be unintentional. (Wrong HOW/WHY) Seeing people intentionally grow (Right HOW/WHY) made them feel guilty about being unintentional (Wrong HOW/WHY).

2) Then, years later, why were these people unwilling to talk about their behavior from the past two years?

They felt guilty about how they and their former friends have gotten worse in the last two years, while the people who chose to be intentional (Right HOW/WHY) have grown in the last two years and have community, forgiveness, love, etc. In fact, if they think about what they ACTUALLY did over the past two years (deter their friends from growing), they will experience even more guilt!

Notice, this also explains WHY NO ONE that is attacking me is willing to meet or talk to me!

WHY won't the pastor that wrote the refutation to "Modeling God" meet with me, speak with me, or respond to e-mails? He would have to admit his goal to remain unintentional (have a wrong HOW and WHY) is wrong AND he would not be able to get rid of his guilt...especially when he faces the fact that he (a pastor!) has hindered the growth of others!

WHY won't the Traditional Pastor meet with me or speak with me or read "Modeling God"? Again, he would have to admit his goal to remain unintentional (have a wrong HOW and WHY) is wrong AND he would not be able to get rid of his guilt...especially when he faces the fact that he (a pastor!) has hindered the growth of others! In fact, his NEVER stating to the mentee, the Judge, or to me what his PERSONAL beliefs are, is the ultimate proof he is avoiding thinking about the HOW/WHY!

It now makes sense to me WHY people who attack me won't meet with me AND they won't give THEIR OWN HOW/WHY...yet most believers won't notice that "Modeling God" and these attackers espouse the same WHAT!


HELPING OTHERS
My goal is to help people. Here is what I've seen in the last three years:

The first choice a person makes is between growth (which means being intentional) or comfort (doing whatever they want...being unintentional).

If they chose to do whatever they want and be unintentional, eventually they are going to hit bottom. They are actually attempting to exist without thinking about their HOW/WHY. This means they are going to drop to a level where they can no longer do whatever they want. They can no longer be unintentional...exist without examining their HOW/WHY. Whether it is spending money and reaching their credit card limit or having sex with multiple partners and getting AIDS, people cannot be unintentional over the Long Term. Eventually, they will hit their bottom when their ability to be unintentional is denied.

Notice, intentionally pursuing growth (HOT) and hitting bottom (COLD) are BOTH not able to be experienced by people without being intentional...having to think about their HOW/WHY. Only the middle is unintentional...because not thinking about your HOW/WHY (being unintentional) is LUKEWARM.

When people who have hit bottom (COLD) ask me for help, they tell me they want to grow (HOT). So, I help them. I give them intentional (HOW/WHY) directions and they do them because they are ALREADY being intentional while they were COLD...their choice is really between being intentionally miserable (COLD) or getting intentionally better (HOT).

I have a 100% success rate helping people who want to get out of the hole. Basically people don't grow because they are either unable or unwilling. When they want to get out of the hole, they are willing...and I am able to help them.

However, a strange thing happens once they get out of the hole. They are VERY grateful and thank me, however, only about 5% of these people continue to speak to me, even though they said they would continue to be intentional and grow. In fact, when they eventually hit bottom again from attempting to live the unintentional life over the Long Term, this time they won't ask for my help...even though I would still help them. They are too guilty about having lied to me the first time. What did they lie about?

They aren't interested in continually growing (HOT). They aren't interested in continuing to be intentional. Their real desire is to be unintentional (LUKEWARM).

What they were really saying when they first asked for my help was: Help me get back to being unintentional (LUKEWARM)!

The people who went to the Emergent Church wanted to be unintentional Saturday night and not feel guilty about it because they did their best to get help by going to church Sunday morning. As long as the church is unable to help people be intentional (Right HOW/WHY), these people can convince themselves not to feel guilty. However, some of them felt I ruined their way of removing their guilt by having a way of (Right HOW), and reason behind (WHY), intentionally growing...of helping people.

How would someone, who was upset about this, express this?

They wouldn't explain themselves because it sounds so wrong that they would just end up with MORE guilt. They would remain unintentional! They would be against this information WITHOUT understanding it...WITHOUT discussing it...WITHOUT supplying a HOW/WHY. They would state that they FEEL this information is wrong and then state that the division and uncomfortableness would never be associated with ANYTHING having to do with God!

ACTUALLY, that last statement came up repeatedly...and it PROVED these people had lost their way and fallen into the oldest deception.


THE OLDEST DECEPTION
This ALL comes back to the flesh attempting to live unintentionally in a guilt-free fashion! The flesh wants to be unintentional...the flesh wants to do whatever it wants to do (without a HOW/WHY) AND NOT feel guilty about it.

The previous dispensation of the Law made this extremely difficult. People were not allowed to do whatever they wanted to do...and they definitely weren't allowed to NOT feel guilty when they broke the Law. The Law was VERY intentional.

When the Law was done away with by our dispensation, we ought to live by "grace". What is "grace"? We have seen the Biblical definition of grace is the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life. So, grace still involves being intentional. It involves taking direction from God from the inside (through the Holy Spirit), instead of from the outside (through the Law).

The flesh wants to avoid grace! Grace doesn't allow the individual to do whatever he wants and not feel guilty about it!

The pastor who wrote the refutation to "Modeling God" INTENTIONALLY mis-stated the definition of grace from "Modeling God", was confronted with the fact he misrepresented what I had written (Wrong HOW), and rationalized WHY it was okay to continue misrepresenting me (Wrong WHY)! Notice, this spiritual attack is over the definition of grace!

Around 500 years ago, Martin Luther and John Calvin changed the definition of "grace" to "unmerited favor".

No wonder people loved this definition! It allowed them to be unintentional! Ask a pastor or believer how "unmerited favor" results in Salvation. Here is how "unmerited favor" is explained:

-Basically, we sin and we can't help it...we get to be unintentional!

-God chooses who He is going to give His unmerited favor to and there is nothing we can do about it...we get to live guilt-free!

People who preach THIS "good news" are stating that being one of God's "chosen" is great because you get to go to heaven even though you did NOT do anything to DESERVE it! Calvinism presents a way to get all of the benefits without any of the responsibility!

Biblical grace states that the good news is that you get to go to heaven even though you did NOT EARN it...there is a HUGE difference between these two statements...

EARNING it means we did something of ourselves that directly causes Salvation.

DESERVING it means we were responsible for something that allowed or prevented God from saving us.

Biblical grace says those who go to heaven did NOT earn it, but did deserve it BECAUSE (WHY) they choose to let God flow through them (HOW) and the Righteousness that resulted is God, NOT the individual. This justifies God and makes it the individual's fault for lack of Salvation.


THE FEELINGS OF THE FLESH
Calvinism says those who go to heaven did NOT deserve it or earn it...it "just happens" because God selected some instead of others regardless of what the individual did...which is a Wrong HOW/WHY because it results in God creating some people for the sole purpose of being tortured for eternity. (Basically, God is the cause of these people being created AND there is NOTHING these people could have done to avoid eternal torture! This would make God Right-Wrong...God would have a Wrong HOW/WHY!) This justifies man (the flesh) and makes it God's fault for the lack of Salvation.

Calvinism is a nice way to tell people they are going to heaven without having to take responsibility...without having to go through tough times OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. Jesus was very clear that those who follow Him are choosing to endure persecutions!

If you don't think that people 400 years ago were looking to grow without experiencing discomfort that they had to intentionally choose to go through, look at this passage from "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan (1678). A character named "Worldly Wisdom" tried to convince the main character (Christian) that Christian's walk with God doesn't have to involve persecution, discomfort, etc.

"But why wilt thou seek for ease this way, seeing so many Dangers attend it? Especially, since I could direct thee to the obtaining of what thou desirest, wihout the dangers that thou in this way wilt run thyself into: Yea, and the Remedy is at hand. Besides, I will add, that instead of these dangers, thou shalt meet with much Safety, Friendship, and Content."

Even today, the church promises to help people progress on their walk with God with safety, friendship, and contentment...without having to choose to go through any difficult times. This is the oldest deception! The serpent told Eve that surely she wouldn't die for doing something that feels right. Surely God wouldn't be involved in anything that didn't feel great.

ACTUALLY, God flowing through us is uncomfortable to the flesh. To people who are in the flesh, God flowing through them "feels funny"...it "doesn't feel right" to the flesh!

Most believers pray to have a real experience with God. However, I have seen that when most believers actually do feel God flow through them, they say "this doesn't feel right". Some of these people had extremely destructive behaviors that they NEVER "felt funny" about doing! Yet, when they read "Modeling God", they suddenly felt this was WRONG because it "felt funny"...couldn't explain the HOW/WHY...and didn't have the SAME FEELING as when they did their destructive and illegal behavior!

People tend to think God flowing through them will feel wonderful...unicorns, rainbows, glitter, etc. However, the flesh that craves these great feelings is in for a rude awakening when it truly does experience God!


SUMMARY OF THIS WEEK'S STORY
In 1961, AW Tozer warned the church not to "go into eclipse" by having the wrong answer (Wrong HOW/WHY) to "What is God like?" Five years later, the "God is Dead" movement challenged the church to explain "What is God like?" Forty years ago, the church's response was THE WILDEST RATIONALIZATION:

"It is Right to NOT be able to state the HOW and WHY supporting our Christian beliefs (WHAT)"

...which eventually becomes: "It is Wrong to state the HOW and WHY supporting our Christian beliefs (WHAT)".

Forty years ago, the church consciously chose to embrace The Godless Christianity Movement.

After twenty years, Calvinism seized this opportunity and became THE MAIN DOCTRINE of today's church.

More than fifteen years ago, I noticed MOST Christians could not explain WHY they believed WHAT they believed. I have spent that time determining the non-contradictory Model for God so that Christians and the church could reclaim their rightful places. Instead of being embraced, "Modeling God" has been actively attacked for stating the non-contradictory HOW and WHY behind the WHAT of orthodox Christianity...BECAUSE MOST Christians truly believe THE WILDEST RATIONALIZATION!

The result is that today there is NO STATISTICAL difference between people who attend church and people who don't attend church. Actually, the data seems to show that church actually hinders the individual's ability to live a Godly and sanctified life...it seems to hinder peoples' ability to help others!

However, I have seen the information in "Modeling God" intentionally help people hear from God more clearly and more often...it supplies the Right HOW/WHY behind the Right WHAT (belief).

I have now seen the ultimate cause is that people want to be unintentional and guilt-free.

People want to do whatever they want (not think about their HOW/WHY) until they hit bottom...when they can't continue to be unintentional. While they are unintentional, people want to relieve their guilt because they know they are being LUKEWARM.

This mentality has reached today's church to the point that when someone espouses a non-contradictory definition of God, instead of embracing it as the answer to how to reach out to atheists and prove the Bible is truth, the people in the church attack this information because they believe the wildest rationalization: It is wrong to state the HOW and WHY behind WHAT we believe.

I have seen one pastor publicly attempt to refute "Modeling God" without giving his own HOW and WHY...yet, clearly use a Wrong HOW/WHY. He is creating God in his own image.

I have seen another pastor try to create a church that relieves peoples' guilt for being unintentional...yet the church has fragmented to the point there is almost nobody left who is still speaking to each other.

I have seen a third pastor try to get all the benefits of leadership without any of the responsibility. He won't state his HOW/WHY, yet wants to appear like he is helping people grow.

While all three of these churches appear to be separate, we have seen they share the same CAUSES:

-They actively attacked the non-contradictory Model for God without giving their HOW/WHY.

-They are Right-Wrong...they have the Right WHAT with the Wrong HOW/WHY.

-They believe the wildest rationalization: It is wrong to state the HOW and WHY behind WHAT we believe.

-They enable the flesh's objective: to live unintentionally in a guilt-free fashion.

-They embrace the oldest deception: to help people progress on their walk with God with safety, friendship, and contentment...without having to choose to go through any difficult times. They wrongly believe God would never be involved in anything that results in division.

Ultimately, all of this began forty years ago when the church decided to go without an orthodox understanding of God...when the church ignored AW Tozers' warning.

However, all three of these churches are connected in another VERY INTERESTING fashion...through a "prophetess". In fact, we will see the source of the stress between these three churches is due to this prophetess.

During next week's story, we will look how "Right-Right" helps us determine whether a prophet(ess) is speaking for God or false...

Next Post