Back to the Wayne Coats Library

Mechanical Nut Twisters
Or
The Hot Air Halitosis of Change
Agents In The Church of Christ
As Advocated by Lynn Anderson


Wayne Coats

Throughout this work I will be using the expression, “mechanical nut twisters” and insofar as I know, that is not copying from someone.  I feel that when we use the expressions of others, the least we can do is give due credit, if such is possible.  I like to copy and be copied when something is worth copying.
    The “Change Agents,” to use Lyle Schallers expression of 1972, are bent on remaking the old ship of Zion.  Such agents are not content to jump overboard and abandon that which they dislike so very much.  They desire to loosen, unscrew, twist off and turn every “nut” which they can turn, to the complete wrecking of the church.  There are many brethren who will not be fooled by such casuistry.
    It will not be my purpose in the present review to notice every quibble made by brother Anderson but I do propose to show the evil results of the purveyors of change.  Their plan is not as innocent as some might think, but it is a replica of the old Digressive Movement which obviously sent many souls staggering toward the bottomless pits of eternal hell.

1

We do not hesitate to condemn such modern efforts to turn the bride of Christ into a harlot.
    We can give little boys a nice machine and make tools available to them, encourage them to dismantle the machine, and it won’t be long until they became expert “Nut Twisters.”

Anderson’s Many-Faced Preface
    We are enlightened, Illuminated and educated by Lynn Anderson who would have us to think that, “Churches of Christ, like many other Christian fellowships struggle with change….”  Instead of causing so much division brother Anderson and all the rest of the religious Nut Twisters would do the cause of Christ a big favor if they would make a mad rush and join one of those, “Many other Christian fellowships.”  This they will do when brethren wake up to what evil is being wrought.
    Just who and what are those “other Christian fellowships?”  It takes some high powered navigating by super navigators to change the church into just “another” denomination or to think of denominationalism as being comprised of the church of Christ along with the plants conjured up by men.  What do the nut twisters plan for the church?  They plan to affect such changes as will turn the church into another cult.  We will look at the end results in a short while.
There are many half-converted, half-baked, card-carrying party members who wouldn’t know the church of Christ from a herd of cows.  These are the kind of people who rally around the nut twisters.  It isn’t difficult to change people who are changeable.
    I am drawing my conclusions based upon what I see in those congregations which have ambled along with the nut twisters.  I certainly regret the thinking that the truly converted are ready to turn the church of Christ into some sort of Holy Roller, cultic outfit.  Look at the prized exhibits which are on display wherever the Twisters can manipulate a sufficient number of nuts.
    I believed as brother Anderson that the church is

2

a denomination, I do think I would leave it pronto.  Since one denomination is as good as another is, why hang on to one which is so dismal, dark, demented, and destitute?  Does brother Anderson think of himself as a Junior Moses whose time has come to be a sort of Saviour of all the lost, doomed and damned sheep?  Indeed, he will supply divisive waters and help us stumble through the benighted wilderness of ignorance and decay.  Yes sir!  “Maybe even, in some cases, we must change or die.”  Tell it long enough and a certain segment will believe it.  Who wants to die except the suicidal person?
    No man can stir up trouble until extant conditions are deprecated. To threaten with death is frightening Doomsday prophets are a dime per dozen in the church.  “Certain truths are bedrock to the faith,” so we are told, but the problem in such babbling is that there is such a babel of voices among the liberals as to what those “certain truths” are.  They cannot get together as to the “bedrock to the faith.”  Their crescendo consists of “Lo here and lo there.”  “Lets twist this nut first,” says one.  Another chirps, “Ho, ho here is a better nut and its easier to twist.”
    The unvarnished truth is that, “Certain truths” and “the faith” is the very thing which the liberals are bent on destroying.  They have made all kinds of liberal changes and their demonstrations are becoming more obvious as time moves along.
    Some of the more loquacous liberals tell us that we cannot know truth whereas others can glibly talk about serves as the host with the most?  The answer is the one who can cause the most trouble.
    Brother Anderson cannot possibly make any kind of consistent argument for truth.  With his palaver about, “other Christian fellowships,” we will let him tell us when, where and how the truth becomes contradictory as hawked by those, “other Christian fellowships.”  He really messes up.  This is the dilemma of every false teacher on earth.  Of course, they want to tell one and all which scriptures

3

are first order truths, which are second and third, and which truths are not really truths.  It takes a fairly brazen liberal to presume to be more intelligent than God.
    Every member of the church of Christ needs to know that the liberal positions which rears its serpentine head within the church is but the result of a spill out of liberalism from the secular realm.  Never in the history of our nation have we seen such goof-ball buffoonery advanced by liberal politicians and social-welfare misfits.  Homosexuals are being ordained to preach.  The feminist movement being led by a gang of half-wit malcontents and the liberal preachments for murdering millions of unborn babies, are but expressions of liberalism hone to seed.  That’s the culture which serves as a pattern for the Anderson church.
Sectarian clergy and babbling brethren have teamed up as champions of the liberal cause in the religious realm.  The political liberal s and the religious liberals are cut from the same cloth, except the political liberals manage to conceal their lying schemes with more success than some of my liberal brethren.  Some of the brethren can find plenty of closets in which to hide.  Elders will even furnish such hide-a-ways.
Brother A. thinks that it is really complex for one to be able to learn, “how to manage change.”  That should be no problem if one can read.  We here mention that Lyle Schaller wrote hi book, “The Change Agents” over 20 years ago.  Like Brother Anderson, we can read from the sectarian writers and become an expert as a manager of change.  One doesn’t need to have much sense in order to cause trouble in congregation.  Hell on earth has been around since Eve listened to a Change Agent.
Brother Anderson tells us that there is, “…a hemorrhage of young people from our churches…” Certainly!  There is a hemorrhage of preachers and professors who join the liberal ranks.  Pablum feeding pastors and puny parishioners have become the laughing stock before the world.  It takes true grit to swim against the washout.

4

    It isn’t surprising, nor should one be appalled that young people are leaving the church.  We should be surprised that more are not leaving.  Anderson has his ideas but I have a different view of the matter.  Brother A. is deeply disturbed because the old, dry, outdated, traditional, stagnant church doesn’t connect with the culture of the young people.  He rambles around over the country giving his spiel about, “A church that connects,” which is nothing more than muddy malarkey.  Isaac Errett made the same speeches in days gone by and helped to start the Christian Church.  We will say much about this concept but just here I will respond by saying that our brother has his “cart before the bull.”  The bull is not only hitched to the wrong end of the car, but is sometimes piled pretty high upon the cart.
    That something is wrong in our world surely not one would deny. That much of the church is running headlong towards eternal torment is too true for even positive preachers to refute.  But what is the problem and what is the salvation?  Brother Anderson is fostering the problem and he certainly has not given the solution.
    I believe in 1994 I spoke in fifteen states and I saw some of the conditions and some of the results as described by Lynn Anderson.  I saw some congregations on the decline in membership and I saw wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, division, ill-will, and the devil at work because of the influence of Nut Twisters.  Congregations all over the nation, in various cities and countries are treating each other like lepers, harlots, drunks, thieves, murderers, cut-throat, swindlers, dope-heads and stinking corpses.  Then they will rush over to the “sanctuary,” roll their eyes back somewhat like a dying bull calf and splutter, “Our Fatha, way up yonder, in haven.”
    There is a serious, death-dealing problem and I do not think it has anything to do with the sex habits of rabbits.  That is as remote as the usual illustrations provided by Change Agents.  If you read any book written by the twaddlers for change, please note how the statements or illustrations of some expert false teacher

5

will be given and then swoosh, away one flies on, “fresh winds of change.”  I beg and plead with brethren to be aware of this scheme.  Brother Anderson’s book is based upon a bunch of bungling, fortuitous and illusory illustrations.  For each manufactured illustration set forth, I can concoct as many and more which will show a different picture.  Our good brother uses illustrations and fair speech to embellish his cause but horrible epitaphs can be pasted on the church of which I am a member.  Making fun of the bride of Christ is fair game among the liberals.
    Schaller, Barna, Willoman, Woodroof, et al. Give amazing illustrations.  So did uncle Remus, Aesop and Mother Goose.  Illustrations, such as the proceeding merely prove that we can illustrate.  So can a three year old.
    Young people are leaving the church and the church isn’t growing, so lets change the church.  Lets send out a number of soap-box hawkers and grease a few printing presses and begin to sound forth with, “The church must change.”  The actual fact is that young people, old people, dead folks, rats, rabbits, and rodents have nothing to do with the ballyhoo to revamp to church of Christ and turn it into a liberal denomination.  That is the real truth of the matter and we challenge Anderson and others to recruit someone who will deal with the issue.  The basic, underlying purpose is to turn the church of Christ into another cult.  All the mouthing about the bad conditions in the church is but a subtle means to a diabolical end.
We know what happened when the Nut Twisters dismantled the church during the 1800’s.  We know what they said and we are hearing the same perverted speeches all over again.  It worked once and it is working again.
    Because of, “changing culture,” the church doesn’t connect so the church must conform to culture and then Utopia will be realized and Nirvana will be reached.  Is it really that simple?  Let’s apply a few common sense principles which cannot be denied and cease dealing in so much subjectivism.  Of course, the church won’t get restructured without subjective thinking.

6

    It is an indisputable fact that liberal denominations have experienced a phenomenal decline in church membership during the past several years.
It is a fact that the style of automobiles has changed since the fifties.  It is a fact that women’s shorts are much shorter than they were during the fifties.  It is a fact that, “Change Agents” have become professional manipulators during the past few years.  It is a fact that some things are facts.  The church is filled with “consultants” who need to be helped before posing as “Church helpers.”  It is a fact that consultants have replaced the word of God in many places.
One obvious fact is seen when one looks at the grim statistics of liberal churches and realizes that everything which liberalism, modernism and change can put into operation, has not stopped the steady decline in denominational membership rolls.  We beg, plead, and implore our liberal experts to tell us why the same solution they offer us has not worked and is not working among the liberal sects.  Somebody remarked that, “It is a poor rule that won’t work both ways.”  The fact is, NO liberal rule will ever work for God.
    The liberalism and modernism which has sneaked into the schools and congregations would turn the church aside into something akin to the Disciples of Christ denomination.  Who will stand willing to deny this?  We will be waiting, waiting, and waiting.
How did the liberal Disciples of Christ get started?  They got some super-duper Change Agents who wanted to connect with culture.  Did they ever connect! And how!  The old Christian church had come into existence due to digression.  But digression cannot develop without Nut Twisters.
    May be brother Anderson would write a book and tell us how the Christian Church and the Disciples Church split and why they split.  May be he could tell us how they leaned over backwards, bent forward and stood on their heads trying to connect.  Maybe brother Anderson would tell us how fast those connecting churches are becoming

7

disconnected.  The Disciples of Christ group has been at the very top of denominations with the fastest decline in church membership during the past several years.  They have tried the very elixir, potion, and patent cure-all remedy which our brother Change Agent Anderson is peddling, but it hasn’t worked and will not work.  One can hardly convince color blind people that red is really red.  That would be as impossible as convincing me to a liberal.  Whew!
    The membership rolls of liberal churches are shrinking.  The Methodist and Presbyterian churches are declining at such rapid rates as to be very alarming to their high officials.  There has never been any connection concocted which those denominations have not utilized while trying to stay ahead of culture.  Brother Anderson would fit perfectly into the agenda of such changing groups.  Today he could easily affirm that babies are born totally depraved but tomorrow he could change and declare that little babies are regenerated.  A Nut Twister can twist nuts to the left or right.  There are many left-handed nuts for certain.
    Can we assess the situation objectively?  Can we put aside our prejudice and preconceived ideas and be objective for awhile?  Can we address the situation or must we construct a human contrivance and address it?  Th liberals are experts at constructs.
    The church isn’t growing.  Young people are leaving for something that “makes sense to them.  They leave nonsense for good sense.  That good sense can be found down the street in some cultic outfit, but to brother Anderson it isn’t a cult but rather it is a glorious “Christian Community” that connects.

My Version Of The Situation
    Yes I agree that the church of Christ is not growing.  The denominations are not growing.  The denominational churches have been shot through and through with modernism and liberalism.  Right or wrong?  The Pastors

8

serving the sectarian churches have been tinctured, tinted, and tutored by modernistic professors who are reeking in agnosticism, skepticism, and at times just plain atheism.  The young pastors inhale the stale breezes exhaled by their stagnant professors who, of course, believe absolutely nothing for certain.  The play-boy pastor have marched forth into their pulpits with sociology, psychology, and liberal papers supporting social action programs.  The Bible has failed to connect because it never was preached in a faithful manner.  It has been covered by changing creeds.  I sincerely believe brother Anderson would make a wonderful Episcopal Priest.  He could change his “habit” at will.
    As a result of liberal schools of theology and liberal pastors, church members have come to have no use for the Bible.  Right or wrong?  Such men as Altizer could spread hi “God is Dead” theology among the Methodists.  One Methodist pastor confided to me, “Methodists no longer believe anything.”  Of course they believed in Change Agents and Nut Twisters.  I think it would be extremely foolish to dance for a band that plays off-key.  Brother Anderson wants to be your band director.
    Would brother Anderson agree with what I have written above?  How can he deny it?  We will apply the same stroke to those within the Anderson fellowship.  We were never bothered with modernism and liberalism until such stench began to infiltrate our schools.  Some of our brethren sat before professors who were virtually infidels and swallowed the slime of distrust, doubt, and deprecation of things sacred and eternal.  Those modernistic mouthings have been brought back by spineless professors who have actually served as traitors to the very purposes and intents of the founders of the schools.  Right or wrong?
    Young preachers, (pastors, in fact and in act) have been brain-washed with cheap grace, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, and practically every fool notion that can be implanted into their feeble brains.  The Sunday parishioners gets puked on with the regurgitation from modernistic class attended by the pastors.  The professors

9

and the pastors do not have any real deep convictions about anything except getting a check.  With the skepticism and doubts being inculcated by brother professors, change agents, nut twisters, and pastors, no wonder our young folks are marching like lemmings on the way to drowning in the sea.  I suppose I could make fun of my dear wife at every opportunity and it could be that she would grow weary of such beratings.  Why not?  I could accuse her of being old, traditional, out of date, not connecting, refusing to be contemporary along with every coarse, crude repulsive, vile and vulgar innuendo.  That would make for an almost perfect change agent, and I do suspect some things would get changed.
    Apply such tactics and derision against the church as mentioned above and surely people will become disillusioned.  The communist lie about capitalism worked for long decades.  The liberal lie about the church is tremendous for the devil.  Keep repeating, and repeating, blowing off the stench of compromise, and it will have its effect.
    For a number of years so many of our preachers have been nothing more that cheap politicians vying for the best resumes which would get larger churches which would get bigger salaries.  And the Bible?  “Huh, what’s the Bible?”
    Give me the right king of nut twister and he can talk the Bible right out of, away from, and aloof from so many of church joiners.  And that is the problem in a nutshell.  For years the pulpit has offered weak, insipid, saccharin made from coal tar, and such drivel has been substituted for the sacred word.  Thousands have been “churched” but not converted.  Many more have found a pastor, a parson, and a place instead of Prince Immanuel.  Brother Anderson is a strong advocate of people being converted to a place.  Keep this point in mind until we get tot he matter of pulling out and starting a new church when brethren won’t change.  We might even do a bit of tail-twisting instead of Nut Twisting on that point.
    The book under review is but another tool to create

10

dissatisfaction, distrust, disgust, and mistrust in the church of my Lord.  I have read the book and understand full well the purpose of the author.  His speech betrays his actions.  The language of Ashdod is too pronounced.  His first priority is to remake, reshape, revamp and get the church on the road to digression, and to assist in this he writes a book.  “He too, shall not pass,” to quote brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
    Given the control of liberal universities with the modernism and liberalism which is rampant, and the ignorance, blindness, and compromise which obtains upon the part of so man elders and preachers, the problem will get worse before it gets better and one who cries aloud and spares not will be adjudicated to be back in the dense wilderness.  I believe it was my dear Redeemer who trod the winepress alone.  Some of us think that the disciple is not above the Lord.

11

Is It Fresh Or Chill Winds
(Prologue)
    It is beyond belief how those fresh, balmy breezes can become “chill winds” so quickly.  It  takes a “change agent” with a big wind tunnel in order to develop whatever kind of breeze is needed.  Whenever those majestic maestros who direct the soothing winds of change are being described , they are like balmy zephyrs which are soothing, soft, and gentle.
    When the hide-bound traditionalists are discussed, an inevitable malevolence of violent, chilling, howling winds of tornado velocity is spewed forth.  So we are confronted with chill winds.  “What is stirring this tempest?” Brother A. tells us the three forces are:
    1. We are an information society
    2. People depend less on authorities for answers.
    3. The economy is restructuring itself.
    Pray tell when those three stirring forces began to be operative on American soil?  Why did the Pilgrims land at Plymouth Rock?  What forces stirred them?  What forces stirred our brethren during the forties and fifties.  I jut think brother Anderson had to say something.  His agenda is to peddle discontent.
    We are told that, “Basic Paradigms are shifting --- new realities make the old rules obsolete.”  The only reason assertion is true is simply because Lynn Anderson wrote it.  A paradigm is an example or a pattern usually shown side by side with that to be patterned.  If a thing is “basic” it is fundamental, needful, essential.  That which is basic forms the very foundation or essence of a thing.  I suppose brother Anderson lives in a house.  I suppose the house has a foundation.  I suppose the foundation is basic to the house.  May I suppose the old, basic foundation can

12

shift and the house be in better shape?  Hogwash!  The Nut Twisters want to establish their own set of rules because someone thinks the old foundation is obsolete.  Such blatant blunderings only prove that some people have to say something.
    What are those Basic things that are obsolete?  Give us a list of Basics which describe the church of our Lord and tell us which ones are obsolete.  Brother Anderson would make a good helmsman on the raft with Ton Sawyer and Huck Finn.  As “Innocents Abroad” they navigated the mighty Mississippi in the same manner that brother A would have us navigate the chill winds.  Remember the song, “It’s a ill wind that blows nobody good?”  That is the kind of wind the liberals are blowing.
    Brethren, the liberals want us to have sense enough to leave the “old rules” alone.  Our forefathers changed the rules and got exactly the kind of thing brother Anderson wants.  He should go ahead and join the new rules.  The Christian Church, Unitarian, Fellowship would be just the thing.
    Of course, “… explosions are erupting in churches all over the country.  There is congregational upheaval” and there are “dividing churches” but that doesn’t matter to Nut twisters.  That is what they want - if it means getting their way.  You say I’m wrong?  Alright please try to explain to me the stupid concept of “Unity-in-Diversity” and they tell me who is prating that junk.  Today the liberal will whoop and holler for Diversity and tomorrow he will lament all the explosions-if that is what he needs to put in a chapter.  We must be explosive.
    Who is causing the explosions, the upheavals and the splits?  Why are they being caused?  How are they being cased?  How many will go to hell as a result of those explosions? Who cares?  It’s an old book that describes old rules about unity and some of the old folks like those old rules in the old book.
    That brother Anderson draws heavily from sectarians, no one can successfully deny.  He has talked to Lyle Shaller and refers to Shaller’s materials as well as

13


other denominational writers.  He needs such supporters in his efforts to make even the semblance of a weak case for changing the church.
Anderson lauds such apostate brethren as Rubel Shelly, Joe Beam, Royce Money, Jim Woodroof, et. Al as he moves along with his program for change.  There is one specific, common factor which is noticeable in every liberal who blows his horn for change.  They begin by telling us how things have changed.  Everybody agrees, "“yes, yes, and Amen!”  They talk and write about how culture is changing.  Everybody agrees, “Yes, yes, and more Amens!”  They talk and write about how culture is changing.  Everybody agrees, “Yes, yes, and more Amens!”  They give long illustrations about how companies, corporations, and businesses are constantly changing, retooling, upgrading, revamping and everybody shouts “Amen, Hallelujah.”  When everyone gets psyched, brainwashed, addled, and ready to go on a children’s crusade for change then the Nut Twister jumps to the main thrust and begins to twist the nuts who (I mean which) can be twisted.  All the antics of semantics is then turned loose in trying to convince one and all that the church must change or die.  I mean die dead!  “Deader than a doornail.”  That word, “Dead” is a horrible four-letter word which no person young or old will even pronounce.  People depart, expire, give up the ghost, ho the way of all the earth, but it is the sad fate of the old, traditional unchanging church to die.  That is the pronouncement of the experts like Lynn Anderson.
    The devil abhors the church of Christ and he abominates those who have convictions relative to the truth.  Satan will destroy everything possible which relates to the truth.  He will create division and destroy the unity of the Spirit by raising up all the Nut Twisters possible.
    Perhaps this reply to the Anderson book will serve as a sort of monkey-wrench to assist in keeping all the Nuts in the old ship of Zion from being cast away.

14

Introduction
    The Material in the following pages will present to the reader a review of Lynn Anderson’s book, “Navigating the Winds of Change,” or “How to Manage Change in the Church.”  In preparation for this review I read the Anderson book three times very slowly and most carefully.  Afterwards, in picking up the pieces which I desired to review, I read the material for the fourth time.  I don’t like writers who go off half-cocked, thus I try to arrange my writing patterns so as to be able to tolerate myself, if I should ever read what I write.  Tis best to respond to fiction with indisputable facts.
Before I begin writing the following review, I read and made copious notes on the following books:
    1.  The Change Agent-Schaller-1972
    2.  Effective Church Plannign-Schaller-1979
    3.  The Care and Feeding of  Volunteers-edited by Schaller-1978
    4.  Assimilating New Members-Schaller-1978
    5.  Leading Churches Through Change-Schaller
    6.  The Small Church is Different-Schaller-1982
    7.  Strategies For Change-Schaller-1993
    8.  Conflict in the Church-Willimon-1987
    9.  User Friendly Churches-Barna-1991
    10.  The Decision Makers-Schaller-1974
All of the above books are before me on the writing board.  My opinions- for what it is worth-would be that is one reads brother Anderson’s book, then one has read the material contained in the above volumes.  Moreover, if one has read the above books, one has read the material in the Anderson volume.  I do have a right to my opinion and if I state my opinion as an opinion-it should be treated as an opinion.

15

    Please take notice, be aware, consider the fact that Lyle Schaller is the authority in many circles when it comes to writing, Speaking and promoting change among churches of various denominations.  He is a very interesting writer from the denominational perspective.  Schaller has been busy for almost a quarter of a century working with thousands of churches from “more that five dozen traditions.”  He places at the top of the list of priorities, “The need to initiate and implement planned change from within an organization.”  Schaller is the author or editor of more than eighty books and works out of the Yokefellow Institute of Richmond, Indiana.  Every Nut Twister for change must memorize Schaller’s works.
    We mention the above for the simple reason that Lynn Anderson lets us know that he has talked with Schaller, and in his book, brother Anderson lets us know that he uses Schaller as well as several other will known, “Change Agents.”
I think it might be of interest to a few of the readers to know that Abingdon Press in Nashville prints the Schaller books, which brother Anderson finds so helpful.  The Abingdon Press has been a long time publishing firm for Methodist writers.
    It makes me chuckle a little when I read the wisdom of brother Lynn as he writes, “Don’t copy the strategies of others.”  I will try my best to abide by such brilliance.  I may be tempted to visit the library and get an arm load of books, then copy the ides and thoughts in to some sort of “expert” effort but I just know better than to, “copy the strategies of others.”
    Brethren, please do not forget that Lyle Schaller wrote his book, “The Change Agent” back in 1972.  That was twenty-two years before brother Anderson wrote his book.  Denominational experts, Change Agents, managers of change have been training and working for years to become professionals in their fellowships.
    Brother Lynn Anderson has now become a professional among the professionals.  He can do seminars on changing the church.  He can tell us how to be

16

navigators of change.  He has used the wrong word and I shall prove y assertion.  His agenda is more akin to “manipulators of change.”  Keep this in mind as we deal with the Anderson “strategies” for change.  He rejects the concept of “manipulation,” and prefers to use “strategies,” but we shall see as we sail the sea of change upon which our brother has embarked.

17

Chapter 1

How To Disrobe The Bride Of Christ
    They call it “fresh winds,” a “refreshing breeze,” and they use other smooth words and fair speeches designed to ensnare and enlist the unwary.  I do not see how the breezes can be so gentle, fresh and exhilarating in view of all the conflict, tensions, chaos and disequilibrium which the Change Agents write so much about.
It cannot be denied that men like Lynn Anderson are most unhappy with the church of Christ.  Their discontent arises because they cannot do as they please.  Because they cannot act like denominational or cultic preachers and reaming in faithful congregations they will resort to changing congregations wherever they can get a tow-hold.
    It would be far better if the liberals would go ahead and get into the Disciples’ denomination instead of causing so much trouble.  I suspect they know full well that all the liberal sects are dwindling even though they use every scheme which can be initiated.  Change Agents started the Digressive Churches.

How Can Change Be Affected
    The patterns and principles of change have been written in books by several of the experts who are known as “Change Agents.”  I think it will be very interesting to parallel some of the ideas, expressions, words and topics as used by early denominational writers who were “Change Agents, “ and see how brother Anderson uses so many of the very same expressions as a latter day “Change Agent.”  Please do not think that I am implying anything about

18

where brother Lynn got all his thunder and wind for changing the church of my Lord.  Perish the thought.

How Can The Church Be Changed?
    The experts inform us that no change can occur until discontent over the status quo is aroused within a congregation.  That is where the Nut Twister earns his fee.  As a real expert he is supposed to know how to write and speak in order to raise a high level of discontent.
    If a mite of this material seems repetitious, be not dismayed.  I am urgent, insistent, pleading, and praying that brethren will open their eyes to the spoken purposes and published plans of the Change Agents.
    Back in 1972 when Lyle Schaller wrote, “The Change Agent” (“The Strategy of Innovative Leadership”) among the many things to be done the author said that, “The first is a change in structure.”  If you had a hard-headed aim to change the church, you certainly would want it, “Restructured.”  That word looks a bit “stinky” so it would be less discomfiting to whisper softly about, “RENEWAL.”  That sounds so nice and sweet.  Brother Anderson loves that word “Renewal.”  We understand what is meant by “Renewal.”
    It is impossible to Renew that which is new so the situation must be shown to be deficient, faulty, old, archaic, out of date like old Wineskins and ragged pantaloons.  Whatever it takes in the way of illustrations to prove (???) that we are still share-croppers working, “God’s Little Acre,” or standing in line for food at a textile mill as people did in the thirties rest assured that the proper illustration, language and snarls will be given against the church in order to push it down.
    All road must lead to the “Church of Discontent.”  If there is an ere pathway, then build a spacious boulevard.  Again we quote a 1972 statement of Lyle Schaller who said that in order to get change accepted, one must “deliberately encourage an increase in the level of discontent with the status quo.”  “Without discontent with the present situation there can be no planned,

19

internally motivated and directed intentional change.”  “Without discontent there will be no intentional change originating from within…”  “Thus the first question for all change-oriented individuals is a simple one: Is anyone else dissatisfied with the present situation?  If the answer is in the negative … There are however, many ways to open that door, and often this is the first task of the agent of change.”
Schaller quotes Saul Alinsky who said, “rub raw the sores of discontent with the status quo is to deliberately cause a malfunction …”
    “A third approach to raising the level of discontent … is to see both a vision of what could be and also a working model of how that vision or dream could be turned into reality.”
    Do not forget that the preceding quotes were written in 1972.  That has been long enough for brethren such as brother Anderson et. Al. To memorize the rules for change.  One would doubtless think as those principles are scribbled by brother Anderson that such would comprise a holy, inspired, divine law, for manipulations of change within the church.
    In 1974, Lyle Schaller wrote, “The Decision Makers.”  He declared, “There are such a number of forces that, under the appropriate set of circumstances, can offset the impact of tradition.  ONE OF THESE IS A PERCEIVED CRISIS” (caps mine - wc).  Schaller discussed, “Decision-making under conflict” tension or a perceived crisis, then someone will need to decide something.
    We note that, “… the safe response to change is an attempt to maintain the status quo.”  Who wants to keep old ways, old folks, old methods and the old church around?  The plans and strategies for change continued to be formulated and in 1979, under the editorial direction of Lyle Schaller of the Yokefellow Institute, Douglas Alan Walrath wrote, “Leading Churches Through Change.”

20

Walrath declares, “Change is a threatening experience.” “Needed innovations within these congregations should be introduced slowly and tenderly.”  Walrath is well aware of and cautions about conflict which ensues with change.  But please do not forget that change will not come without tension, conflict, and crisis.
    It was also in 1979 that Lyle Schaller wrote, “Effective Church Planning.”  The author says “…new concepts from the behavioral sciences into terms that can be used for effectively solving church problems.”  Schaller asks, “Which button do you push?” (1) The guilt button, (2) the legalistic button or (3) The love button?
When I become an expert Change Agent and excel at Nut Twisting, I will try my best to make my brethren feel guilty for causing the church to become almost lifeless.  I will denigrate the dry, stale, stagnant, worshipping time wasting episodes, and then I will pour lavish love on all the sisters and a few brethren.  That will make a connection for sure.
    Brother Anderson is familiar with William H. Willmon who is 1987 wrote, “Reaching About Conflict In The Local Church.”  No Change Agent should venture for the without taking the marvelous insights of change as discussed by Dr Willimon.  The Doctor warns about the conflict which accompanies change.  We must never forget that tension, conflict and disequilibrium must precede change and it should be expected that for some, the conflict will continue along and subsequent to changes.
    After twenty-one years had passed Schaller wrote, “Strategies for Change.”  The book is must reading for all who seek to be involved in restricting the church.  Schaller reiterates some of the same principles which he made in previous works but especially does he say that, “…planned change always begins with discontent with the status quo.”  Brother Anderson is more than familiar with the preceding works.  I have those books and have read each of them but I do not feel that hey have anything to offer, unless one is a far-out liberal, Nut Twister Change Agent-of which I am not.

21

    To change the church there must be an initiating individual or group.  This can be done by using bayonets and bullets; or perhaps one could use a method that would provide less tension and show more love.  Who cares just so the church is revamped to look like  culture?
    Schaller places at the top of the list of needs, “The need to initiate and implement planned change from within an organization.”  The change must be “initiated from within the organization.”  The question is asked, “Who stirs up the Discontent?”  The answer is to find a “…widely trusted leader to initiate it.”  Once the new wine begins to ferment, “planned change is initiated from within…” “Frequently useful means of broadening that base of discontent is to help others identify the discrepancy between the vision of a new tomorrow and contemporary reality.”
    “Change…requires a support group for implementation.”  Sometimes the imitating group fails because it “…overlooks the need to build a support group for the proposed change.”  “An essential element in the process of planned change is the mobilization of a support group or the building of an organization.”
It is always easier to rope a stubborn calf is “well known and prestigious names on a letter head, the honorary chairman, the editorial in the newspaper…” or other well known tactics are used as supports.  Using people who are skilled and competent, “in communicating,” will lend support to change.  That is why the Change Agent must be a skillful artist.  No one wants to listen to a lisping, stammering tongue or read from a third-class nerd who writes for change.
    A checklist for Change Agents is given by Schaller in, “Strategies for Change.”  A few of those “guidelines that may strengthen your tactics and make it easier to implement your strategy” are:
    “Count only the Yes votes”
    “Rally the cheerleaders”
    “Identify legitimatizers”
    “Identify potential opponents early”

22

    “Begin with winners”
    “When necessary, change the players.”
These are a few of the many strategies which one might use to implement change in the church.  Brother Anderson would most likely call these “motivational techniques.”
    Surely there are those who will wonder why I have quoted from the works of those who wrote as “Change Agents” in days hone by.  I honestly believe that every principle of change enunciated by brother Anderson in his book, “Navigating The Winds Of Change,” can be found in Lyle Schallers’ book, “The Change Agent” which was written over two decades ago.  It should be interesting to all my brethren to realize that the church of the 1990’s must be turned topsy-turvy with the principles of change set forth in the 1970’s which were fresh, balmy, healing, and heavenly.
    Heart language and authentic worship stirs the soul.  Those of us who weep and howl when we are made aware of the miseries which come upon us due to not worshipping God authentically, need to spend much time in sackcloth and ashes begging brother Rubel Shelly to absolve us from all our ignorance.
    It was George Barna who wrote about stagnant churches.  It was brother Anderson who wrote about stagnant worship.  It was Barna who gave the proposal to provide "“...people with an accessible way to worship God.”  It was brother Anderson who wrote about providing for people, “A comfortable place to bring their friends.”  It was Barna who wrote so much about, “Seekers.”  And brother Anderson wrote, “Seekers feel drawn to churches that expect God to act.” “…you may also connect with a wider circle of unchurched seekers.”  It was Barna who wrote about “Authentic Christianity.”  It was brother Anderson who wrote About,”…Authentic and free worship…”  “We must change in order to worship God more Authentically."
    Lyle Schaller wrote about someone who was convinced that, “contemporary Christian music is an OXYMORON” (caps mine, wc).  It was brother Anderson who wrote, “Henry Lyte’s line is an OXYMORON” (caps

23

mine, wc).  “In spite of the oxymoron, that hymn remains one of my favorites.”  “To talk about a conservative restoration movement is an oxymoron.”  In case one does not know what an oxymoron is, it means that even a Moran can plow an ox that is liberal.  It could be that the oxymoron and the El Torro of Houston would make an excellent team for the old, stagnant dying church to use in pulling the cart with all the dead members to the graveyard.  We venture that ere long all the baby liberals will be babbling about an oxymoron.
    It was Schaller who wrote so very much about RESISTERS.  Among other things he said, “Many of the long-time ‘resisters’ feel frustrated, ignored, disenfranchised, and powerless.”  It was brother Anderson who wrote, “Change won’t come without Trust.”  “Trust is crucial in the Change process.”  Things may not go smoothly in change.  It was Schaller who wrote about, “the tradeoff.”  It was brother Anderson who wrote about, “What kind of trade-off can be offered?”  It was Schaller who wrote about “The pace of change,” and how to increase the level of discontent in the status quo in order to “hasten the pace of planned change.”
    It was brother Anderson who wrote about people moving, “… at their own pace.”  Comment!  That being the case what benefit is a Nut Twister?  I have many pieces of equipment and machinery, and I like to proceed at my own pace when I get ready to twist off some nuts.
Sometimes the jet-set wants to skim across the waters at break neck speed and all kinds of dangerous wakes and moaning for the bar is created.  Wow! Schaller wrote about the factor of time.  Fast timing may produce risks or even rejection.  Barna advised, “Buy as much time as possible.”
    It was brother Anderson who wrote, “Build in timeouts.”  “Be patient.” “Let God choose the timing.”
    It was George Barna who wrote a book of 191 pages

24

titled, “USER FRIENDLY CHURCHES.”  It was brother Anderson who three years later wrote long paragraphs and many pages about “USER FRIENDLY” churches.
    It was Barna who extolled the virtues of Willow Creek Church in Illinois as a “real church: it has spiritual depth, biblical integrity, and solid ministry priorities.”  Barna attended Willow Creek for some years.  Willow Creek now has “…more that 14,000 weekly attenders.”  “Willow Creek may well be the most copied church in America today.”
    It was brother Anderson who wrote “All across North America, new churches are springing up.  Churches that do not connect with our culture” (caps mine, wc).  “One of these … has grown to Sunday assemblies of over fourteen thousand.”  The “Willow Creek Community Church” is growing at “phenomenal rates.”  It connects with culture and that is what brother A is advocating.  He wants to crate a Community Church and we challenge, beg, and dare him to step forward and deny it.  We’ll grind up his book and let him eat it like Israel had to swallow their idol.

25

Chapter  2

It Isn’t What Went Wrong But Who Is Wrong
    Yes, something has contributed to declining growth and shattered dreams but no liberal writers will address the situation.  A liberal attitude has settled over the schools and many churches like a dense smog.  The hue and cry from liberals is that the real culprit is, “Changing Culture.”  That is the terrible mad wolf which has been turned loose in the midst of the sheep fold.  Every pen of every liberal has to scribble something about “culture.”  Brother A writes, “The thesis of this book contends that we must also factor in the much larger issue of culture change.”  Brethren, the liberal do not give a hoot about culture, except they think it makes a good alibi for destroying the church of Christ.  They have to say something in order to get their dupes excited.
    It is not culture and has nothing to do with changing culture that causes the Nut Twisters to fly all over the world and cause trouble in areas where faithful missionaries have toiled and labored for years.  It is a blatant lie that the church needs to change in the remote areas of the far east just to appease some liberal Nut Twisters.  In hand is a letter informing me that over in Guyana, some far-out liberal is using Jim Woodroof’s book, “The Church in Transition,” as a textbook for studying with people.  Of course, the effort is as innocent as a newborn babe, when it is done in the name of “culture.”
    Brother Dorsey Traw and other good men have worked like slaves in Thailand for these many years.  Their labors have been productive of good without doubt.  Did you read the print out of the gang of liberal Texans who

26

were going over to, “PLANT” the church in that area?  Well, yeas it has been planted for years but a crew of arrogant, bigoted, liberal snobs didn’t think the church conformed to culture so they had to devise a liberal scheme to plant the church.  This unholy, diabolical pattern is the way the liberals operate.  Follow their paths and see the results.  Do not accept my prejudices.  The liberal would split every congregation on earth in order to carry out their plans.  They operate as tools for the devil just exactly like the old digressive.  A little smirch will not refute my charges.  They do not give a hoot  for the Word of God.
    Have you noticed the balderdash given by the liberals as they misuse Matthew 9:17?  Jesus is speaking of old Wineskins and new wine.  The passage and its context deals with a question the disciples of John asked Jesus.  Please note that those disciples asked, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples of Jesus were not to mourn because the master was still with them.  When the master was away, then would be the time to fast.
    Fasting and mourning while the bridegroom is present would be comparable to sewing a new piece of cloth in an old garment.  That would not help but would be a hindrance.  Furthermore, to fast and mourn while the bridegroom was present would be as absurd as pouring new, fermenting wine into old wineskins.  Why will the liberals take Matthew 9:14-17 completely away from its context and try to apply it to fit their foolishness from the old liberal theologians who have used the wineskins illustrations.  In their blindness they compare the church to old wineskins.  Such is downright stupid, or just plain mean.  The liberal thinks he has some new wine and he would establish him a new bag to hold his borrowed brew.
    I do not understand the sorry attitude of people who will spin a false theory and then pervert, twist and wrest

27

scripture trying to support their false position.
    When that new wine has been consumed by the liberals, they puke forth a cult.  It is attractive because it is supposedly a new model.
    I am not convinced for one second that the liberal element in the church is concerned about the changing culture.  Moreover, I am not convinced that they care one whit that the church isn’t growing.  I sincerely believe that the number one concern of the babbling liberals is to change the church of Christ into a sort of playboy-bunny cult and in order to do this, there must be a loud alarm sounded about something.
    Stop, look and listen carefully as brother A writes, “Supple, expandable, wineskins of new church formats, educational methods, and outreach strategies are needed to accommodate our fermenting culture.”  This is a subtle ruse if ever one was scribbled.  It is not a “new church format,” but a new church which brother A and other liberals want.  Some of those false fellows have shown some integrity and moved out to start their own church.  Others like brother Anderson will hang on and hang out wherever brethren will suffer them.  That new church format is seen in the community churches which the liberals are starting.  The problem is not a fermenting culture but fermented ignorance and disrespect for God’s Word.

Strategies And Tensions
    The experts from the denominations write long, detailed sections about how the “Change Agent” will need to operate.  Back in 1972 when Lyle Schaller wrote, “The Change Agent,” he cited the risks that people must take when they become innovators i.e. Change Agents.  There is the risk according to Schaller and Drucker, of making the current practice and patterns of operation to become obsolete.  Well, of course, all one has to do is take a split second glimpse and the Christian Church.
    We need to present brother Anderson a plaque for writing the brief section on, “Strategies and Tension.”  He writes about “The Pace of Change.”  Schaller wrote about,

28

“The Pace of Change.”  The Change Agent will be neutralized until he can create tension and discontent.  We must build discontent in order to change, and change ferments more tension.  Brother Anderson writes, “And the resulting changes bring tension, as we retool to fit our times.  But this tension is essential to creating new ministry strategies, organizational formats, and worship styles for effectiveness in our setting.”
    In 1972, Schaller wrote, “..the pace of change can be speeded up tremendously…, deliberately encourage an increase in the level of discontent with  the status quo.”  “Without discontent with the present situation there can be no planned, internally motivated and directed intentional change.”  That means give an expert a soap box and an audience and he can become a Nut Twister overnight.
    We are about to learn the meaning of “Strategies” as used by the Nut Twisters.  We are well aware of the strategy of the devil to use, cunningly-devised, fables (II Pet. 1:16).  Such is but another strategy in his repertoire.
    Instead of supporting the New Twisters, who cause tension and discontent, brethren should be ashamed of them.  It is the very depths of duplicity for children of God to be affected with discontent and tension as they plan to worship the Father in heaven.  Moreover it is the height of stupidity for me to be filled with tension as I sing, pry, commune, and draw near to God.  Brother Anderson may find folks who will swallow his drivel but God forbid that his assertions will be accepted by the masses.
    There was a public notice of division in 1906.  There is division now but it has not been recorded in Washington.  I am certain that my Lord has become sick to the vomiting point, as a result of the tension, ill-will, in-fighting, division and disgrace which prevails.  Just wait until several new batches of Change Agents are spawned, and tension will surely increase.
    Please note that Schaller wrote, “Planned change initiated from within does not happen unless a substantial degree of discontent with the status quo exists.”  The

29

Change Agent then attempts to enlist “… supportive allies who also are discontent with the status quo…”  One must broaden, “the base of discontent.”  The New Twisters call this “strategy.”  I call it designing, manipulation, scheming, and downright dishonest, devilish and diabolical.  Cheap politics is a sorry strategy in the kingdom of God, but the liberal cannot have his way otherwise.
    Things are in a terrible shape in so many of the congregations.  That, “Rural Mindset” is but a dying gasp in many areas.  “Shattered Dreams” are causing multitudes to flee, and “Old Maps” will not lead anyone to heaven.  Woe unto us, “the church is not relevant in todays world.”  And to enhance the sleazy diatribes against the church of Christ, cheap humor in an illustrative form is used.  How brilliant!
    Have you noticed the unison of song among the Nut Twisters?  They have it memorized and all the stanzas as well as the refrain say the same thing.  The church of Christ is the result of tradition.  The worship is traditional.  We are obsessed and preoccupied with the past.  Culture has advanced far beyond the church.  We must change the church to fit culture.  The church must be what culture make it.  I wonder if anyone has sense enough to tell me what will happen when a given culture completely changes.  Some cultures have ceased to exist, so it should follow that culturally designed church would cease and desist-if for-sooth it was founded on a given culture.,  Liberals have never made any sense with their concoctions.
    Brother Anderson doesn’t like the church of Christ because it is hide-bound by tradition.  Tradition, “…forms and functions don’t fit the heart language of our current culture.”  Tradition is a terrible boogy-man to be dispensed with so we can have fresh winds.  First we must be suckered into accepting the big lie that the church is the result of tradition.  Once we swallow that blooper, then another will be offered in the form of, horrible, stultifying, degrading, death dealing and antiquated traditions which cannot be tolerated.  That stirs tensions and discontent among the brainless set.  With the tensions fermenting in

30

the old wineskins, a wonderful, marvelous, majestic, savior from death appears with a copy of “Navigating The Winds Of Change.”  (How To Manage Change In The Church) and a new church, a new hope, fresh winds and a new paradise is experienced.
    I suspect my hear-headed nature is just too much in its demands-for me to enjoy reading any book which uses the technique and methodology of the Anderson volume.  I simply cannot tolerate anyone making an unsupported assertion and then leaping into a harangue as if all the premises were true.  This is the methodology of every single book I have ever read which has bee authored by some liberal brother.  The following citation will serve as an example of the matter.  Brother A declared, “Some of us stopped developing and the culture moved on without us.  Consequently we have difficulty connecting with the people who live here and now."” That is exactly what a changer need to say to his dupes and that is what they are supposed to swallow and after swallowing such drivel, it is supposed to create tension and discontent.  When tension and discontent are finalized, the church will be glorious beyond belief.
    Brother Anderson says, “We stopped developing.”  I do not believe that is true.  It simply is not true that faithful, sound, dedicated gospel preachers have ever stopped developing.  As Rubel would write, “O For And Honest False Teacher.”  Did Guy Woods, Gus Nichols, B. C. Goodpasture, Rex Turner, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., G. K. Wallace, and legions of other good men stop developing.  Hogwash!  During the time of no “development,” we have never had as many consultants, methodologists, escorts, attendants, ministries, deliverers, liberators, redeemers, saviors, rescuers, authorities, scholars, doctors, theorists, specialists, therapists, and wizards who are just a mite shy of being gods.  Brother A can boast of wonderful Change Agents who would never stop developing.  If  one has any respect for truth,  The crux of the problem was not under-development, but over-development in schools of modernism and liberalism.

31

    “And culture moved on without us.”  It would be interesting to know where in the name of common sense brother Anderson studied and learned so much about culture.  He can hardly pen a sentence without relating it to culture.  Certainly there are some facets of culture which change.  Even a fool will agree to that but I deny that every facet of Western Culture has changed.  Ah,  but from a purely sociological viewpoint, I would be thrilled, elated, and happy to meet Lynn Anderson in a discussion of “Culture and  The Church of Christ.”  I can quote as any authors and books as he.  There are some things which are unchanging, eternal, immutable, absolute and never to be changed.  I suppose brother Anderson might agree- for a moment.  Would the Bible be a part of Western Culture?  Shall we exclude the book which outsells all others and deny that it is a part of our culture?  Is the Koran a part of Moslem culture?  Is the Torah a part of the Jewish culture?  When culture moved on without us, that means the Bible, the Church, preachers, etc., etc., moved on without us.  Yes, sir!  Everybody has a Bible but the Bible moved on without us.  I have no compunction of conscience at all in writing a book about the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism.
According to brother Anderson, since, “Culture moved on without us,” that mans that those of us in the church of Christ exist without a culture.  Yes, we uscribed to the mores, folkways, traditions and paid our taxes like those who were moving with culture, but we were no part of culture because brother Anderson-had to say something.
    Since we walk by tradition, “We have difficulty connecting with the people who live here and now.”  This is but another absurdity.  Do the Presbyterians fee bound to tradition?  Do the Disciples of Christ denomination move along in the benighted realm of tradition?  They are as modern as a newborn monkey.  Brother Anderson needs to tell us why all the liberal, cultured churches are not connecting.  We beg him to lease try to do better in his next journalistic effort.  He writes without reasoning.
    If a person is gung-ho to be a super-star Change

32

Agent, he will make it a point to, “minimize precedent, tradition, and custom and to start fresh…,” according to Schaller.  We are not surprised to read from brother Anderson as he deprecates, puts down and is credits tradition.  In order to raise the ceiling of change, a hood Change Agent endeavors to change values, traditions, and customs.  He wants to be “fresh.”
    We are reminded that “mighty winds of renewal are also sweeping the land.”  Hardly any word is as magical and titillating as the word, “Renewal.”

33

Chapter 3
Seeing Visions And Dreaming Dreams
    The ancient prophet spoke of those who would see visions and dream (Joel 2:28).  Our brother Anderson writes a chapter which he calls, “Shattered Dreams.”  He says, “In fact, I think that somewhere along the way, at least for a while, my own Church of Christ fellowship, like many others, lost its dreams.”  While discussing those lost dreams, brother A lets us know that he is referring to the days when the great decline occurred and resulted in the split of 1906.  Can anyone be so naïve and narrow as to know not the cause of all the trouble?  Again, we ask, “Why and how did the digressive Christian Church develop.”  Was it due to faulty dreaming?  The liberal element ceased following Jesus of Nazareth and became enamored with nightmares.
    “Many other Christian fellowships appear to have suffered similar declines.”  And why not?  With so many “other Christian fellowships” and the divided debaucle presented to an already  unbelieving world, would it really taw a persons mentality to understand that division has been the major hindrance to  people believing in Christ?  Jesus said so in John 17:20ff.  Our Lord did say something like, “…that the world might believe.”  Dreamers have no use for Jesus prayer for unity.  Why should a person play the fool and become a party member in the Anderson fellowship when one is just as well off or better in some “other Christian fellowship?”  The agenda is to change the church.  The method is, whatever it takes and whatever will work.  I do think that not all members of the church are dunderheads.
    “Shattered Dreams!”  That makes a great chapter heading show that there is a great problem.  A crisis of

34


alarming proportions has occurred.  If it is not real, the Nut Twister will make is sound real.  He must get people to listen to his weather reports about a hurricane which someone thinks might develop.  Sound the alarm and people will respond.  The church will be changed.
    “Empty churches!”  Indeed so!  Look at the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church and the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church and the Catholic Church.  Then look at the Anderson remedy.  What is it?  It  is the same, identical, pattern utilized by the ultraliberal churches for decades-which has NOT worked for them.  Our brother seems to think that he has a new remedy.  He has found a new act.  The one thing which he has found is a lot of cheap print and a lot of gullible brethren who are willing to buy such sectarian ideas.
    It could be interesting to learn about all those empty, liberal churches over in Europe and why they are empty.  Of course, one word would explain the situation.  Infidelity is the crux of the problem.  That is the problem in America as well.  It is the major problem among members of the church of Christ.  Church members are too ignorant to believe anything of importance and feel too important to discuss anything regarding belief.  By careful searching one might find a few righteous souls in Sodom.  It is doubtful that an over abundant number would be founding an Ark likened to that of Noah’s time.  The liberal want new rules instead of absolute rules.  We cannot split churches, families and communities  so frequently, if we do not manipulate changes.  That is why there are so many manipulators instead of Navigators.
    Brother Anderson must think that one and all will swallow his spiel in toto when he writes, “But the art of change management is a brand-new field.”  I thought change management might have started with the devil in Eden.  What our brother calls, “Change Management” is nothing more than change manipulation.  Even a squint-eyed moon-struck, snow-blinded person can see that. Keep reading and we will scrutinize the saying of brother A and show beyond reasonable doubt that he actually

35

condones manipulation of brethren.
    A star witness for brother Anderson is George Barna who operates a Research Group.  Anderson quotes Barna because Barna says what Anderson wants to say.  Both men believe that the church is not relevant in today’s world.  Somebody please tell me when the church was ever relevant.  When has God been relevant?  Is Jesus Christ relevant down in Texas when our brother sits down to write?  And oh yes, “baby busters are looking for alternatives to traditional religious practices and faiths.”  Heaven help us if that makes any sort of sensible impression on us.
    Brother A wants us to know what “baby busters” are thinking.  I do not doubt that some brethren can be greatly impressed with what a bunch of babbling, bawling babies are seeking.  Every denomination on earth is a demonstration of people seeking alternatives to the faith.
    “Fewer and fewer unchurched people express an interest in attending a Christian church in the future.”  Why should they if they believe like brother Anderson?  That noble quote will help to make more noise about the big crisis which is all around.  Create a crises which breeds discontent and discontent will enable brother Anderson to convince some hapless soul to develop a cult.  Memorize the preceding sentence of our brother because it is crucial.
    I deny that, “…the art of change management is a brand-new field…”  Is our brother completely ignorant of the Old Digressive paper known as, “The Christian Standard?”  Does he not know how liberalism managed to change the church?  If brother Anderson will  visit me, we will set down together with the first issue of the Christian Standard in hand and we will study the subsequent issues and I will show him his forerunner.  Why refuse to state the facts?  We do have some Johnnies-Come-Lately  who envision themselves as new artist who can affect “A New Art Form.”  The devil doesn’t need any new art forms.  His old forms work well with semi-illiterate, half-baked, holyroller brethren.  Those “new art forms” were conceived and gave birth to the liberal, digressive, Christian, Church

36

and believe it or not-some elders are listening to the same spiel being made all over again-when they hear brother A intone about, “A Church That Connects.”
    Before one can succeed as a bonafide Nut Twister one must learn to use “Renewal” instead of revamp, revise, remonstrate, remove, rend, tear, break, split, rupture, renovate, and replace.  The articles, speeches, and books of liberals are full of the Renewal jargon, and some of our elders and preachers are so dense that they have no earthly idea how “Renewal” is being accomplish.  Ah, it sounds so good!
    A person would be foolish to run over the community announcing that he was going to cause tension and discontent in  a congregation in order to turn it into a cult.  He  would appear wise to the unwise, if he announced that there would be, “Renewal.”  In 1972 Schaller wrote, “If, however, the goal is to increase the level of DISCONTENT (caps mint-wc) as an essential preliminary step in the process of planned change, certain tactics including the language chosen, require more thoughtful consideration.”
    In 1969, John W. Gardner delivered a series of Lectures at Harvard relative to “Renewal.”  I didn’t hear Gardner but in 1972, Schaller wrote about Gardner and his speech.  I read Schaller where he quote Gardner regarding “Renewal” and then I read Anderson.  Gardner is quoted by Schaller as saying, “Each reformer comes to his task with a little bundle of desired changes…Gardner goes on the point out the necessity of continuous process of RENEWAL and the importance of coalitions.”  Wow!  Brethren there would be no Nut Twisters among us if they would quit borrowing their little bundle of wrenches from others.  Anytime a fellow wants to bash the brains out of another with a baseball bat, he is at liberty to do so in the name of RENEWAL.
Schaller later refers to Gardner’s work on “Renewal” in discussing how an entire organization can be changed.  When all the Nut Twisters get together and work on the old ship of Zion it will look like the Apostle Don Fintos

37

Belmont Cult, or some other RENEWED cult.  We had one era of blessed renewal back in the 1800’s.  The Boston Cult has been very busy with their RENEWAL and now all the liberals are chanting the song RENEWAL.
    I sincerely believe in the he concept of renewal but the first and all important need is to get brethren to renew their minds and have respect for the Word of God (Rom. 12:1ff).  Any cult leader can jabber about Renewal while demonstrating total ignorance relative to the church of the Bible.  The liberals do not want to restructure the church.  A good strategy is to pick the best sounding words.

38

Chapter 4
Is It Heart Language Or Belly Culture
    What on earth does “heart language” mean?  Have I been so far back in the woods as to not even know the first heart-beat about heart language?  When one gets ready for a new church one must discard the old vocabulary and us, “…the heart languages of today’s culture.”  If that doesn’t make any sense, don’t worry about the matter.  Brother Anderson doesn’t know what it means either.  Does he want us to use the heart language of the Prostitute Culture?  Does he want us to use the heart language of the wild and reckless sailor?  Whose heart language shall we use since we are a multicultural nation?  Brother Anderson cannot possibly tell us.  He really wants us to speak in the language of Ashdod.  Our brother isn’t concerned about languages.  His concern is to get us to throw away the past.  When we hold on to the past, we are guilty of holding on to forms and functions which, “…don’t fit the heart language of our current culture.”  The language of current culture is belly languages instead of heart language.
“We want to worship God with freedom and authenticity, in our own heart language.”  “I have become passionately interested in change that can accomplish the things my kids say are important to them: authentic and free worship of God in their own heart language and a church situation that makes since to the people we are trying to lead to Christ.”
“We must make worship more authentic by speaking and singing in the heart language of our day.”

39

“If worship is to be authentic and freely expressed in the heart language of today’s people, it must undergo mega-change.”
    “Genuine worship must be expressed in the heart language of the worshipper.”
    “The musical idiom in this church that connects will match the heart language of the people.”
    “They use music that connects with the heart language of the target culture.”
“If feelers (right brainers) are to worship in their heart language, our assemblies may need to include more experiential and celebrative ingredients, but not to the exclusion of more cerebra elements.”
    “To worship in the heart language of the young, we may need to include contemporary formats, without scrapping all the traditional.”
    “Though music is universally appealing and the main heart language of our pluralistic culture, there is no singular music style that connects universally.”
    “Each person wants to worship God in his or her own heart language, right?”
    “And, if a sensitive leader chooses music to connect with the heart language of the fringe folks or the unchurched, then the people get upset.”
    “The church must connect by speaking a variety of musical heart languages.”
    “To connect with today’s heart language we will need more contemporary music.”
    “In order to communicate in the changing heart languages of the people, musical styles in worship must also keep changing.”
    “What should we do when young people are leaving us in droves because we are not connecting with their heart language…?
    “We are calling for some new ways of using music in worship to connect with the new and varied heart languages of our culture.”  We need to change, “To encourage authentic fee worship in the heart language of today’s people.”

40

    “Your church can…worship more vibrantly and authentically in the heart language of the culture.”
    “We feel a passion to …worship authentically in the heart language of today’s culture.”
    What does “heart language” mean?  Your guess is as good as mine, but if your stomach can endure a few pages of discussion about the language of the heart, hang on.
In view for the above quotes it can be seen that only the believers and followers of brother Anderson are actually worshipping God with any degree of intelligence.  The rest are blind gropers and croakers.
    The Bible reveals the sad story  of some whose god was their belly (Phil. 3:19).  That meant the people responded to the cravings of their bellies as they worshipped.  Brother Anderson would not introduce belly worship but he surely likes that worship with is in the “heart language of culture.”  Try as he will, he cannot possibly show one iota of difference in belly language and the heart language of culture.  We have plastered above a number of sentences used by brother A wherein he speaks about the language of the heart but for some strange reason he has not yet explained what is meant by the “heart language of our current culture.”
    If one starts a new church using the heart language of our current culture, then whenever culture changes the church would change.  Also if five men go into five different cultural areas and start five churches, if the men use the heart language of the culture where they work, then five distinct, different kinds of churches would be started.  This is plain, elementary nonsense.  It makes as much sense as “presenting Jesus as a replica of Mohammed, of Buddah, of Confucius, of Moses or one of the prophets.”
    Brother Anderson avers that we want to worship God in, “our own heart language.”  But I thought we were to act according to the heart language of “current culture.”  Brother Anderson says his kinds want to worship in their, “own heart language.”  What that means is, “we want to

41

do as we please.”  “Meats for the belly and the belly for meats” (I Cor. 6:13).
    Brother Change Agent Anderson wants, “to worship God with freedom…,” pity our poor brother who hasn’t been free to worship God.  His kids want to worship with freedom.  Worship is to be “freely expressed.”  In case he has forgotten, or if his kids never did know-there was a man by the mane of Jeroboam who tried all sorts of schemes in order to affect freedom of worship.  He even moved the place of worship from Jerusalem and set up altars in Dan and Bethel.  That was in keeping with changing culture and renewal.  Old Jeroboam went down in infamy along with his supporters (II Chron. 10:15).
    Brother Anderson wants to change the church and he is bent on changing New Testament worship.  To what?  Even half-baked brethren know that the thing brother A is seeking is already out there.  Why not give up his pay check and go join the sectarians.  Will he, when brethren cease filling his tub with butter?
    All the claptrap about “freedom to worship” is nothing more than using an expression which grabs the attention of those who are grossly ignorant of biblical worship.  I do not have time or space in this review to do a detailed study about “worship,” but brother Anderson is completely missing the mark and trying to make a case for some sort of worship which pleases people instead of God.  He cannot possibly refute this charge and we challenge him to try it.  His system is based upon that which pleases men.  His scheme is directed to man.  His changes are directed by those who are murmuring.
    The Nut Twisters in the church are just exactly like the old Digressives and they are burping the same sort of bilious bile as they make fun of the worship which Gad ahs ordained.  It is not freedom at all but rather than use the word “slavery” which is a nasty word and which is what the liberals are doing, they use a nice word like “freedom.”  They imply that I do not worship with freedom, which is more liberal nonsense.  I engage in five acts of worship each Lord’s Day and I dare the digressives to

42

slink out of their lairs and expose my bondage and slavery as I worship God.  The only freedom we have as servants of Christ is to be people of faith.  Do we not walk by faith?  Are we not worshipping by faith?  Brother Anderson is free to leave like Judas any time he pleases.  Randy Mayeux did show some real character when he left and started his own church.
    If the Anderson rules are right we are not worshipping with freedom, and Lord help in our utter stupidity, ignorance and traditionalism.
    Our worship is not “Authentic.”  We better get help Brother A says he has passion for, “…authentic and free worship…”   He believes in, “…authentic worship and effective outreach…”  He believes, “We must change in order to worship God more authentically…”  He believes, “…if worship is to be authentic… it must undergo megachange.”
    I freely admit that there might be any number of addled church members who will be anxious to let brother Anderson manipulate their thinking with his “authentic” babbling, but I raise a simple question.  Who does our brother think he is, to be so arrogant and cocksure as to discredit the worship of brethren all over the world?  What makes him such a expert?  What does he know that we do not know?  Where has he been to obtain such expertise?
Brother Anderson wants a mega-change in worship because it is not now, “Authentic.”  That word means, “that which can be trusted, true, reliable, genuine.”  Thank God for one who is able to lead us out of the dark labyrinth of an antiquated worship style into the glorious worship arena of trust, assurance, and authenticity.  The old, traditional, boring, dry, decadent worship style cannot be trusted, solely because brother Anderson tells us so.  Do you not think one pope in our world is enough?  One pope is too many, whereas two popes are double curses.
    An authentic worship style is that which is, “True.”  We think we are worshipping according to TRUTH, but we are not and in our deluded thinking, we must wait until the new savior arrives with the fresh winds of

43


change.  God is a spirit and they that worship Him, must worship as brother Anderson proposes.  Like the woman at Jacob’s Well in Sychar (John 4), we do not know what we worship.  Brother Anderson knows.
    Our worship is not RELIABLE when it is not authentic.  When worship is no longer reliable, one might as well move to Athens and worship any god which he might choose.  If you worshipped last Sunday after the same principles, manner, style and form which has been used among congregations of the church of Christ-say for the last fifty years -you really messed up.  How can people of good sense go thought the old outward forms and traditions used by the forefathers?  Such forms are not reliable and one might as well chase rabbits on Sunday.  Brother Anderson will outline a style which will be reliable.  When he does that, then wee can all engage in worship which is “Genuine.”  An authentic worship is GENUINE.  I have very grave doubts about all those things in which I have participated which my brethren have called “Worship.”  All my doubts and fears have arised after “fresh winds” have turned into skeptical doubts and when the skeptical doubts are finished, then I will probably be an agnostic or atheist.  “And these things, brethren I have in a figure transferred to myself…” (I Cor. 4:6).  We might as well be atheists if our worship is not GENUINE.
    Brother Anderson wrote a book in which he deprecates the worship of thousands of Christians because they do not act like he wants them to.  Somewhere in the distant past, when brethren worshipped God, their worship was Authentic.  The folks who worship now like their grandparents used to do are not worshipping authentically.  The reason is due to the change of culture.  Somewhere along the way that which was authentic became “inauthentic.”  That which used to be trusted became untrustworthy; that which was true became untrue, that which was reliable became unreliable and that which was genuine became spurious all because culture changed.  Isn’t

44

it interesting how culture can turn true worship into a farce?  It is more interesting how some people are prone to change the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25).  It is interesting how some people will follow brother Anderson’s theology without question.
    Brother Anderson sets for the eight reasons why we must change.  I can find those eight reasons along with others as I read Schaller, Willimon, Barna, et. Al., but of course, all of the reasons cited by brother Anderson are original with him.  Forsooth, he is sooooo original that all the world can save lots of time in reading from denominational “Change Agents” if they will read from brother Lynn’s book.
In case my readers do not have access to the materials from sectarians, I will list the proposals as presented in the words of brother Anderson:

    1.  Many congregations must change or die.
    2.  Most churches must change to keep our new generation from continuing to leave.
     3.  We must change to keep pace with changing needs and opportunities.
4.  We must change in order to grow.
5.  We must change in order to effectively reach unchurched, lost people.
6.  We must change in order to worship God more authentically-in the heart language of out day.
7.  We must change in order to mature Christians and equip them for ministry.
8.  We must change-constantly upgrade and refine-to maintain excellence thus glorifying God.

    Why must we change?  Because brother Anderson with all his authority tells us that we must change.  And if he repeats his piece over and over, there are many who will believe it.
    Not a single one of those eight reasons are reasonable.  For a thing to be reasonable it needs to be subjected to the laws of reason and/or rationality.  Realism
45

is the seeing of things as they really are, not as one might wish them to be.  When we reason, we come to conclusions by considering facts.  When we reason we present conclusions based upon valid premises in a careful, sensible manner.  When our agenda is to change the church, we relegate reason to the trash heap.

46

Chapter 5
Are They Reasons Or Rubbish
1. “Many Congregations Must Change Or Die.”
One of the fads which is so prevalent is the copying, mimicking and attempts at acting like artist, stars, models and various actors.  Even the language is copied by certain clones who have to say something.  Little hippies try to talk like big hippies.  Little ape-heads try to look like big ape-heads.  That’s how change spreads so successfully.
How have you been, “doing church?”  Are you involved in “doing ministry?”  I will write a chapter to tell you how to “do church.”  “…Unless we change our way of doing church, we will only become more obsolete and less effective,”  So says the authoritative one from Texas.
For some reason I have a revolting, repulsive, aversion to being a “copy-cat” of that which is silly, absurd, asinine, and ridiculous.  Brother A writes, “Yes, the Bible describes how church was done, but in many different ways and fitted to a variety of cultural settings.”  Someone with a lot more sense that I have needs to explain how we “do church,” according to the Bible.  Where does the Bible describe “…how church was done?”  Do we do church like we do kingdom?  How do we do kingdom?  May be we do church like we do body?  How do we do body?  It might be that we do church like we do vineyard, or family, or the called out.  Can someone tell us how we do called out?  Brother Anderson would do the cause of Christ a favor if he would study more and write less.  If I’m wrong, let us meet to see what can be seen.  We know what the sects have written about “doing church.”  That sounds smart,

47

no doubt.
    Must the church change or die?  Is a dying church a monument to a refusal to change?  Such is the implication of the Anderson theory.  He wants to change the church and he needs some sort of alibi to help in his work as a religious “Nut Twister,”  but his remedy is not based upon reason.  He is saying, “Churches which change will not die.”  “Churches which will not change will die.”  But everyone knows that the churches which have changed the most are dying at a faster rate than those which refuse to change.  Brother Anderson’s ideas are false to the core.  Anyone who can run around loose by himself knows the track record of the Episcopalian Church during the past few decades.  Does our brother know about all the efforts of the Episcopal Hierarchy to keep abreast of culture?  They have conformed, transformed, dehorned, and performed whatever some left-wing Change Agent could concoct, yet they are dwindling by the month.  They need his foolishness.
    My but the Lutherans are alarmed over their loss of members but if they would read brother Anderson’s book, they might navigate more circumspectly.  They change ships every little while but the ship keeps shrinking.  Brother Anderson is a false prophet who has read from too many of the false prophets.  If change will save a church as the Anderson thesis implies, then the affluent denominational bodies should be sailing up into the stratosphere.  The Methodist Church has been in a downward trend for thirty years.  Last year they dropped 1.6% in spit of all the women pastors, Change Agents and cultural agendas.  Brother Anderson’s reason number one is no more than a fabrication of unfounded fulminations against the church of Christ.  He needs to repent.
    Has brother A ever heard of the Mormon Church?  Does he know that the Mormons are the fastest growing religious group in America?  Does he know that the Mormon stance will not change to fit culture?  Does he not

48

know that they grew by 2% last year?  Does he not know that they are doing the same things they have been doing for decades?  According to the annual, “Yearbook of America & Canadian Churches 1995,” the “Conservative churches that boldly proclaim what they believe…,” are the ones which have vitality.
    Does brother Anderson know of any Holy Roller Churches in Texas?  How are they dying out?  The Cleveland, Tennessee branch of the Church of God incresed 3% and the Seventh-day Adventist increased 1.7%.  These concrete facts refute and dispute the Anderson gobble-de-gook.  It would be great if one of the Change Agents would tell us why the ultra-liberal, changing, stand-for-nothing, fall for anything, culturally vacillating Disciple of Christ Denomination is withering and dying.  Could brother Anderson help them to change?  They have been following the same spiel which brother A is now championing, but it has failed.  “Your just can’t tell some people anything,” so says Ira.  It would help if Lynn Anderson would just print the truth about growing churches.
    One denominational writer declared that the, “…travails have preoccupied church professionals for two decades, with no consensus reaches about what to do about it.”  For twenty years the professionals have not known but now everyone can know.  The half has never yet been told, but now brother Anderson has a book, and from that book (and other books) we now have all the knowledge for church growth.
2. “Most Churches Must Change To Keep Our New Generation From Continuing To Leave.”
If such is true, then the liberal churches in America which have changed should keep the new generation but it is in fact indisputable that the churches which have radically changed are the very one which are suffering the most due to the new generation leaving.  We beg

49

brother Lynn to try his hand at refuting this, if he will.  More over, the rigid, conservative churches which know what they believe and why they believe, are the fastest growing groups.  Brother Anderson cannot refute this.
    I do not deny that many of the “new generation” down in Texas are, “continuing to leave.”  Why?  The emphasis has been place on growth for several years.  Again we repeat what is very well known and that is that many congregations have been engaged in a numbers racket.  Preachers have been concerned with their resume’s.  They love to print figures this week and compare with last year.  Why?  Ah, that tickles my ego and looks good when I apply a First Church of the Refrigerator for bigger tub of butter.  It won’t help if we have declined, so we better doctor those statistics.
    The “new generation” has been to A.C.U. or some other “ewe” where compromise, coddling, and conformity is the order for the day.  Preachers are hatched out too green to even graze with goats and their weekly efforts are a disgrace to the cause of Christ.  The “joiners” are welcomed with a few hugs, some massaging and several claps.  What are their convictions?  Do not ask?  Do they walk by faith?  Er, uh, what’s faith?  It is no wonder the new generation has no stability.  When they read-(those who can read) books such as, “Navigating The Winds Of Change,” with all the slurs, semiliquidity, accusations, defamation, aspirations, stigmatization, charges, imputations, incrimination, denunciations, inculpating, and its damning the faint praise, I would expect the folks to, (“vote with their feet.”)  Quoth Schaller! Quoth Lynn!

3. “We Must Change To Keep Pace With Changing Needs And Opportunities.”
    Is this reasonable for the unchanging kingdom (Heb. 12:28)?  What must be changed?  The above sentence makes sense if we are building roads, bridges and airports.  When I worship God I do not reflect upon physical needs.  In all

50

sincerity I have thought that we were to be concerned about what the should needs.  Is that not the truth?  Tell me brother if the needs of my soul changes as culture changes.  This is nonsense gone to seed.  I don not put on my Sunday britches and go over to the meeting house for worship, and try to figure out how many times I need to use the toilet during the period of worship.  I repeat, what are those changing needs?  Are they spiritual or physical?  If thee needs are spiritual, let brother Anderson or some other expert address their needs with the bible in hand.  If the needs are physical, then each person has his won standard or felt need.  The Adventist feels a need to adhere to “Doctrine and Covenants,” the Pearl of Great Price, and The Book of Mormon.  Brother A cannot object, and I do not think he  would.
4. “We Must Change In Order To Grow.”
    This contention has been soundly refuted by the examples of decline upon the apart of the liberal churches who keep changing.  “You just can’t show some people anything.”
5. “We Must Change In Order To Affectivity Reach Unchurched, Lost People.”
    How many of the unchurched are the liberal churches reaching?  They change with the seasons just like our brother is advocating.  Why does he have such delusions of grandeur for his program when the very same efforts have already proven to be failures and the very opposite of his program has been demonstrated to be successful.
    Ah, but if we will change we will reach those unchurched, lost people.  Why bother when they will only become twofold more the children of hell (Matt. 23:15)?  We will show later that any effort to reach the lost-according to the Anderson theology-is time wasted.  Such is the result of the Unity-in-Diversity foolishness.

51

6. “We Must Change In Order To Worship God-More Authentically-In The Heart Language Of Our Day."
    If one needs an example of the above, one only needs to look at Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado and Don Finto.  Don did have the decency to depart completely.  That was before he announced that he was an Apostle.
    What our brother is plugging is the spirit and practice of doing whatever pleases the people.  Apparently God has no language wherever brother Anderson goes.  “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…”  Does that mean that ones heart language (whatever that might be) contravenes the language of God?  I believe brother A will refuse to abide by his own shallow theology relative to ones heart language.
    Is there another area wherein we might follow our own heart language?  Suppose some brother in his heart covets another brother’s wife?  Is that heart language?  If it is just a matter of heart language, what would be wrong in brother Anderson leaving his wife?  But someone avers that such would be wrong.  If such would be wrong, then upon what basis would it be wrong?  If the occurrence is due to ones felt need and appeared in heart language, how could it be wrong?  There has to be some sort of rule or something which would lead one to exclaim that such was wrong.  Is that something the heart?  If it is not the heart, then what else could it be?  If it is the heart language which tells me that to leave my wife is wrong, then I raise another point.  What is it that informs the heart that leaving a good wife is wrong?  Is it a medical book?  Is it the Book of Mormon?  How does brother Anderson know in his heart that he should not commit the sin of adultery?  All the material he has written about worshipping God in the language of the heart and with authenticity amounts to just so much babbling.  Our confused brother would not even know there was a God in heaven, if he had not read about Him in the Bible.  Furthermore, if he has any respect for the God of heaven,

52

our brother will cast aside the tom-foolery which he has espoused, turn to the sacred text and abide by its truth.  He needs to return the “heart language” prattle back to those from whence it was borrowed.

7. “We Must Change In Order To Mature Christians And Equip Them For Ministry.”
    It looks like the pack with which I run are not mature and equipped.  Was there ever a time when brethren were mature and equipped?  If so, how did they reach maturity?  How did they manage to be equipped without the help of brother Lynn Anderson?  He is invaluable in getting people equipped.  I just have to ask, “For what?”  The Christian Church has provided some kind of harness which brother Anderson is selling.  One can find the same brand of mush, cush, and porridge in any Christian Church.
    Brother Anderson has changed and he is an authority of change.  That means he is mature.  I’ve always thought that mature preachers could present mature ideas which could not be shot full of holes.  My experience has been that well equipped preachers could meet false teachers and defend the faith.  It wouldn’t happen in a million years but try to imagine brother Anderson making a defense of biblical truth in a public debate.  He has made too many points which would annihilate his positions.  Liberals know the weakness of their positions.  They defeat themselves.
8. “We Must Change-Constantly Upgrade And Refine-To Maintain Excellence, Thus Glorifying God.”
    That sounds so good, but it would be wonderful if we only knew what to upgrade and refine.  It is a mark of brilliance and excellence when people start clapping, stomping, yelling, swaying, soloing, splitting congregations, having union services with the sects, listening to women preachers, playing on instrumental noise boxes and making

53

a mockery of the Bible.  Brother Anderson will be able to affect all of the above and more, under the guise of refinement, excellence and giving God the glory.  It could be that Don Finto would name our brother as another Apostle-in the name of excellence.
    Brother Anderson thinks we need to “upgrade” but I think he doesn’t know up from down.  What he thinks is the greatest blessing will prove to be the greatest curse to the people of God.  History will prove my statement to be true.  Let us unit in opposing liberal rubbish.

54

Chapter 6
User Friendly Means The Old Grey Mare Ain’t What She Used To Be
    A few years ago, George Barna wrote a book titled, “User Friendly Churches.”  He explained that a user friendly church provides, “…people with an accessible way to worship God, a comfortable place to bring their friends, and a sensitive, creative community they can belong to…”  “It is a church that is in touch with the needs of those it wants to serve.” “User friendly churches give people more priority than programs.”  The Willow Creek Church is a model, “user friendly” church.
    Brother Anderson has learned how to write about “user friendly” churches.  He can tell us how the church must, “be made user friendly to non-churched people and new converts.”  “We must learn how to lead people intentionally along a user-friendly path of life…”   “Few congregations have any kind of user-friendly track…”  “Preaching is changing…to textual, expository preaching in user-friendly language.”  “Perhaps the single, most important factor that describes a user friendly church is the presence of God’s vision for the ministry of the church.  Without it, you cannot have a user friendly church.”  “Growing churches avoid needless turnoffs and plan attractive and user friendly assemblies.”  “User friendly churches employ educational approaches that fit the learning style of the people that they are trying to reach.”  “The language of the biblical teaching is user friendly.”  “Effective churches lead people through some from of user-friendly assimilation track.”  “User friendly churches offer hands-on guidance to personalized ministry.”
    Someone is surely asking, “Why print all that stuff

55

about the user-friendly church?”  The reason is due to the fact that one member of the church out of a blue-million has ever read George Barna’s book on “User Friendly Churches.”  After reading the above quotes from brother Anderson, one will not need to read Barna.  I’m almost certain that, although brother A refers to Barna, he doesn’t pilfer Barna but his efforts were directed by the fresh breezes of the Holy Spirit-or maybe some other spirit.  Brother Anderson thinks God and the Holy Spirit are moving mightily in user-friendly churches.  Wonder where brother Anderson learned so very much about, “User Friendly Churches.”
    When Lyle Schaller wrote, “The Change Agent,” back in 1972, which was a book of 207 pages, he used a good illustration about a road map.  Brother Anderson uses the road map illustration.  He says, “My map was obsolete.  Rapid change has run us off the old map.”  “As we have run off the maps of scientific and technological folklore, so also we have run off the maps of organizational culture and organizational psychology.”  Do you suppose the Holy Spirit guided brother Anderson to use the road map illustration, after referring to Schaller some seven lives above on the same page.  The Holy Spirit is credited with doing some strange things.  Brother W. Claude Hall said, “I’d be ashamed to blame the Holy Spirit with being responsible for all that is accredited to him by false teachers.”
    I suppose our brother thinks that when he mentions Rubel Shelly it just might add a mite of credibility to some of the pages in his book.  He writes, “A visible Change Agent in our fellowship is Rubel Shelly.  I fondly regard him as a dear friend and colleague.  And I stand in awe of his giant intellect and God-impassioned heart, which are nudging our movement back on track with the text and helping us better connect with our culture.”  “But Rubel has definitely changed.”  “His courage and integrity have kept him growing.”  Whew!
    I suppose brother Anderson is encouraging his readers to follow Change Agent Shelly.  So Rubel has

56

changed?  Will brother Anderson follow Rubel in speaking for the premillenial, Pentecostal, Christian and other denominational churches?  Is that how the navigate change?  Will our brother join Rubel in praying to the Holy Spirit?  Will our brother follow Rubel in having joint services with the Christian Church?  Will our brother join Ruble in ridiculing, making fun of and laughing at the church of Christ?  Yes, I think he will follow Rubel with his “giant intellect and God-impassioned heart.”  I surely mean no harm but what kind of intellect does one have when one contradicts oneself from speech to speech and from page to page?
    I do not know in which jungle brother Anderson has been lost, but if he really thinks Rubel Shelly is trying to nudge “our movement” back on track, then may God pity my brother.  Rubel has plainly written that he is not interested in “our movement.”  He has no interest in being anyone’s yelper who will hint with him.  Brother Anderson’s track has jumped the track relative to Rubel.  Dear reader, please do not forget that brother A wants us to follow brother S. Our response is, “Nuts!”
    Do you need examples of congregations which have changed?  You might inspect the “Richland Hills Church,” the Highland Church, the Preston Road Church, and although he didn’t mention them please look at the Belmont Church and the Boston Church.  We could mention a number of Community Churches which apostate brethren have started.  Brother A forgot to mention those churches.  What is the matter with the Holy Spirit?  Why does he not point us to the end product?  Why stop at Preston Road?  The changed church of brother Anderson is either like the Christian, Digressive or a Community Church outfit.
    Brother A thinks our views have changed, too.  He says for example, the personal, indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the, “hearts and BODIES (caps mine, wc) of Christians is generally assumed these days.”  “Fortunately,

57

men like Jimmy Allen and Carl Spain stepped froward and helped us rethink the work of the spirit.”  “Only the Spirit of God can change the human heart.”  “I feel that we are caught up in the stream of the new and mighty movement of God.”  “…last Sunday was one of those special days when the Spirit of God fell in rich measure on that place.” (i.e. at Preston Road Church, w.c.).
Brother Anderson is making the same foolish claims which any Holy Roller Preacher in Dallas would make.  He repudiates the teaching of the Bible regarding the work of the Spirit operating only through the word.  He has the Holy Spirit as a person dwelling in the BODY of a person.  Maybe he would like to inform us as to the work of the spirit separate, and apart from the word.  He will not try it.
    Brother A thinks Jimmy Allen and Carl Spain stepped forward.  Ad I recall brother Allen stepped far enough to write a few pages in an encounter with brother Buster Dobbs, but I do declare that brother Allen soon ran out of ink.  I would be happy to send brother A some ink if he would like to explore the matter of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the body.
    Please be reminded that throughout his book, brother Anderson has repeatedly insisted that forms, methods, strategies and formats must be changed.  Where does the doctrine of the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a body, fit into a changing method of format?  Brother Anderson messed up again.  The liberals are like jack rabbits jumping.  They leap and jump from method to massage, back and forth but their trail is plain to see.  “No, we had better not change biblical values or teachings.  But our methods, strategies, formats, and style will need constant upgrading.”  Everyone can understand that we “have changed our views about the Holy Spirit,” but that has absolutely nothing to do with, “biblical values or teachings.”  That just relates to style or some other stuff.  Pity the poor Change Agents who run around with both feet in their mouths.  Anyway, it is God who, “…renews our focus on word, worship and witness.”  He, “refines our

58

understanding of the message.”
    These Spirit filled, God directed preachers are an interesting crew to behold.  They have more refined understanding than the rest of us.  They can understand how the Spirit will tell one fellow that X equals Y but the same Spirit will tell another brother that X equals O.  It takes an unusual dose of spirits for the liberals to function.  If the Spirit has grabbed the Change Agents as they claim, it does look like they would muster a mite more courage and let their claims be put to the test.  They make great claims for the Spirit but the Holy Spirit doesn’t play the fool.
    Brother A will have the church changed into a babbling gang of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Oh yes he will.  God renews our focus on “witness.”  What has brother Anderson seen that would qualify him to be a “witness?”  The best he can do is assert, and the world is already cursed with such characters.  There are no witnesses authorized by Jehovah in the church today.  Our brother Needs to brush up a bit.

59

Chapter 7
Brainwash The Brothers
And Shakedown The Sisters
    Every Nut Twister knows that some brain washings must be done before the machine can be dismantled without causing discontentment, disturbance, and prolonged opposition.  In order to ameliorate the situation, a good solution is to use, “Preaching As a Strategy.”  Change brings conflict and conflict needs a “problem solver,” a “Super Helper,” a “Power Broker” and a “Facilitator,” so says William H. Willimon.  Get the Pastor wound up with good theology for change.
    Brother Anderson says, “Change must first be approached theologically…even the slickest tool kit of change strategies and theories, if not preceded by sound theological reorientation, should be labeled, “extremely dangerous.”  “But good theology can free people from the fear of change.”  “Approach change theologically.”  “Provide ample theological rationale for change all through the process.”  “…we must teach major theological themes and their implications for change.”
    Like the denominational change advocates who emphasize the importance of transition theology, brother Anderson pours on the fuel when he gets to the problems attendant upon change.  He knows about the tension and conflict which ensues and he thinks theology can resolve the problems.  Bible preaching and biblical faith will resolve the problem once and for all.
    Pray tell how theological hogwash can settle problems when Change Agent Nut Twisters bring in their women pastors, instrumental music, and supernatural works of the Spirit?  How gullible must we become?  Before

60

those fresh winds of change turn into chill winds, the brainy pastor will love all the flock in line with his theology.  If he needs help, he might call brother Anderson who is an expert at connecting churches.  Agent pastors can pacify the discontented.
    Some churches have changed and the sainted sisters are now offering public grace from the pulpits.  “Good theology” is the answer.  Rubel’s church members have changed and now they can even absolve people from sin.  It takes “good theology to keep peace when some people do not want to absolve like Catholic priests.  There is some sort of “good theology” for every wave of change.
    Our good brother discusses the “forms of worship” and it is alright with him to change the “forms.”  I find it strange beyond belief that brother Anderson can write seven pages about the forms and function of worship and say never a word about any acts or specifics of worship.  I am sure there are any number of pagans who try to worship something.  It would seem that any and all who read brother Anderson’s book would think that we need to worship God.  He hasn’t told us how we must worship.  Since God is the object of worship, does is make any difference how He is worshipped?  It has made a big difference for some few thousand years and we know that God decreed some specifics which man had to observe.  Some of the Nut Twisters have never liked what Jehovah enjoined.  There have always been actions to perform and there were prohibitions against certain actions as man worshipped God.  Do these not matter?
    One of the new doctrines of the liberals which is being parroted, which has been borrowed from the sects, and which is as false as can be-has found its way into brother Anderson’s book.  He writes, “There is a sense in which all of life offered in adoration to God and reflecting the glory of God by following  Jesus Christ is worship (Rom. 12:1-4).”
    The liberals want everything one does to be worship since that will help them to get away from the acts of worship which brethren have observed down through the

61

years, and which is biblical.  The new doctrine will set the new generation free to be soooo authentic.
    The liberals are so wonderful in only changing the, “forms of worship.”  Never would one change any doctrine which would insist that all we do is worship.  Insisting that all we do is worship has nothing to do with doctrine and even babies should know that much.  “All we do is worship” is only related to the, “forms of worship.”  No doctrine at all!
    The liberal brethren have found the NIV which helps them to be born in sin, have a sinful nature , and worship every second both day and night.  The truth is, they can find a poppycock version which will give them an alibi for any new changes desired.  This has been the pattern of rebels from back yonder.  The devil needs no new strategies.
    When some liberal proves that all we do is worship, by using the NIV, then I will prove (???) that all babies are born as little devils.  I will prove (???) that “there will be infants in hell not a span long.”  Brother Anderson and his ACU brethren need to conjure up some a new paraphrase edition like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults have done.  They do not need a Bible of any sort, since they claim to be led by God and the Holy Spirit.
    There are any number of scriptural arguments which can be given and which will knock the theory (that all we do is worship) into a tailspin.  I will give only one pointer which will suffice.
    When Paul made his defense before Felix, he said, “Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship” (Acts 24:11).  I do believe if one is old enough to turn a page as a Nut Twister, one should understand why Paul went up to Jerusalem.  I have not found one single liberal idea that makes any sense at all.
    Brother A asks, “What language shall I borrow?”  My answer would be, “Go ahead and borrow from Schaller, Barna, Willimon, Shelly, et al, and please tell us from whence, what, and why such strategies, words etc are

62

borrowed. We need to know HOW to borrow from others.  Tis incredible what young liberals have been able to borrow from older liberals.  Language is crucial to the liberal agenda.  This is exactly why we hear so much about, “freedom,” “heart language,” “authentic worship,” “fresh winds,” renewal and “cultural change.”  That is why brother A wrote, “…the language of the biblical teaching is user friendly.”  He actually wrote, “And, if our assemblies are to conne3dt with visitors…we must avoid in-house, churchy vocabulary…”  Haven’t some of us heard that kind of wind blow before?  One young Jubilee speaker copied from a previous Nut Twister and allowed as how we should not “Christianeze” because that turns young people off.  One doesn’t turn twisted nuts off when they are already off.
    So we gotta select a language that connects with visitors?  Brother A might try using Pig Latin.  That proved to be very connecting when we were in Grammar school.  The mentality of many brethren in biblical matters has not advanced beyond the Grammar school level and that might be a few notches below the “visitors” with whom liberals connect.
    People have been able to read the Bible and understand its principles, be obedient thereunto, be prepared for heaven and enjoy the exceeding great and precious promise, until a few discontented Nut Twisters cam along, then presto, we don’t know that we don’t know.
    When brother Anderson avers that, “Former strategies…and vocabulary cannot be imitated in our day with effectiveness,” shall we wait until the good brother prints a guideline with the right vocabulary to be used in the congregations?  Try to imagine the arrogance and colossal gall of some Nut Twister assuming such unprecedented brilliance as to think that an entire vocabulary must be changed.
    Some of us know how Marx and Lenin sought to completely change the life, language and literary expressions of the peasantry under communism.  Adolph Hitler did the same under Nazism and men such as Lynn Anderson are trying to affect a change in the language of

63

brethren.  Brother A thinks that a, “…renewed, changed culturally updated…” church will have a different vocabulary depending upon where the church is.  He says, “It’s working vocabulary will vary from place to place.  For example, as we apply the gospel, academic language may fit well in a college community, business jargon in an urban boomer community or the nomenclature of the factory in an industrial community.”  Just where does the gospel fit in to such a cranky notion?
    Brother Anderson has written a book consisting of 270 pages and for whom did he write?  Was if for the “College Community,”  the business community, the factory worker, or did he write for morons who ride an ox?  It is beyond the absurd for any man to think that the inspired Word has to be altered.
    I suspect brother Anderson feels that his book is written in language which makes sense.  For a fact his presumptuous assertions do not even make good nonsense.  If the uninitiated do not like antiquated religious jargon, what kind of religious speech do they like?  I notice that our brother will occasionally use the words, “God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, prayer, Christian,” but such words do not make sense to many who have not gotten “initiated.”  The cult of the church which matters.
    Brother A writes about, “A Church That Connects,” and I do believe “Church” might be antiquated religious jargon for others-but not for a man possessed with the acumen of Doctor Anderson.  How does one write an entire book while using religious jargon, and think that one makes sense?  The same religious jargon outside of a book makes nonsense.  Wow!
    Chuck Lucas and Kip McKeen were able to brainwash a lot of fair-haired lads and they developed a language and a vocabulary befitting the Crossroads Cult.  Brother Anderson has no new ideas.  We have heard the wind blow before.  When will he give us all the new words which we need to use?  When the Roman rulers conquered far away lands and peoples, they imposed the Latin

64

language upon the confused lands.  Brother A wants to act as if he were a Roman Caesar.  He will give us a new language.
As one reads from the Anderson book, it becomes apparent that no effort is spared to belittle, ridicule, make fun of and deprecate brethren, congregations, preachers, preaching, Bibles and even the vocabulary of the sainted dead who sleep beneath the sod.  When an illustration, example of point can be made which will disparage the status quo Brother A huffs and puffs like a big bad wolf.  His language reeks of ill-will, rancor and borders on a fine line of hatred, albeit he would pose as a sweet, sugarcoated, chocolate drop in some of his sentences.

65

Chapter  8
Is It Right-Brained, Left-Brained,
Or No Brains
    Brother Anderson has a chapter titled, “Right-Brained Christians In A Left-Brained Church.”  For thirteen pages the reader is moved along with a bunch of lamebrain jargon which brother Anderson has borrowed from others and he swallows their garbage as if it was demonstratively true.  Oh how nice it would have been if my beloved brother had supplied my brain with all that brilliance about folks who are left-brained and folks who are right-brained.  I may have overworked one side of my brain, but I just cannot help myself.
    Brother A makes a brief notice of George Barna who tells how many left and right-brained folks there are.  Before Barna referred to the brains of folks; back in 1979 Lyle Schaller wrote, “Effective Church Planning” and he reported that Vadim Lvovich Deglin, a Russian neurophysiologist  had decided that, “Our split Brain has the function of being, “left-brained” or “right-brained.”  There is no proof that such tomfoolery has anything to do with our loyalty to Almighty God.
    With his brain, brother Anderson has been suckered into accepting a theory, copying the conclusions as if they were original, and then he actually dares to foist such inanities upon a reading public, many of whom will accept almost anything.  This is absolutely inexcusable and unconscionable.
    It will help brother Anderson’s case if he gets all of us to act like dummies and believe his spiel.  If some of us are right-brained whereas others are left-brained, then we cannot be responsible if we act like whatever we have

66

to act like, due to the nature of the brain.  Does it not seem that a more sensible, cogent, reasonable, and profitable use could be made with ones brain?  My brain isn’t too powerful, but it would never be such as to work for bankrupt liberals.
If some are left-brained and some are right-brained, presto, brother Anderson will then ram down different styles of worship for lamebrain brethren.  You cannot help the situation bur will be stuck with the matter just as a leopard cannot change his spots.  The Catholics depend on the priests and prelates,  the cults depend on their leader whereas now church members are dependent upon somebody’s guesswork about brains.  In either case, it isn’t culture, but it depends on the wires in the brain.  How does brother Anderson know that all people are categorized into left-brained and right-brained?  He doesn’t know but he would like for us to think he knows. Where did he get Liberals do not need to be concerned about proof.  Whatever they say is supposed to be swallowed.  Liberals are pressed to say something when they have nothing to say of real substance.

Brother Anderson’s Split-Brained Scheme
Left-Brained                       Vs.                      Right-Brained
               1.  Thinkers                                                    1.  Feelers
               2.  Analytical                                                  2. Creative
                    Accountants                                                   Artist
                    Computer Whizzes                                        Musicians
                    Surgeons                                                        Poet
                    Scientists                                                       Preachers
                    Scholars

    “One style of worship fits thinkers, and another style fits feelers.”
    “God simply wired us up differently.”  Who said so?  How does Change Agent Anderson know?  I will not be a sucker.  I demand proof but brother Anderson cannot supply it.  With his meager credentials what in heavens

67

name can he do and say about the human brain?  Nothing!  Cheap blather will impress cheap thinkers.  Weak brains do not demand proof for invalid conclusions.
Brother A has designed two worship styles commensurate with the split brains of people.  Ah, but the hank-clapping, contemporary, style was the winnah.  Indeed, the winnah is the ones with liberal brains, but after all, “God is the one who designed us.”  When our brother can give us brain transplants, then we well all be ready to whoop and holler, yell and bellow in  a contemporary, Holy Roller System.  The Holy Rollers cannot change their brain so they have to bellow and bawl.  
    Can a right-brained person ever become a left-brained person since, “God is the designer?”  If God designed us into right and left-brained people, then why does brother A run around trying to change church members?  Why does he bother to write a book($$$$$$)?  He believes God made us as we are but he wants to change us from left to right or right to left or right to left.  He won’t ever know which is which, what is what, or when is when and where is where, nor will anyone else but he wants you to change.
    God made you with blue eyes, brown eyes or some other color of eyes.  We might start an eye racket as Change Agents and charge money to change the color of eyes as God made them.  Some folks will fall prey for any kind of racket.  God made the eye and God made the brain, so don’t even try to change what God made.  But one can be an expert Change Agent by changing the church.
    It would not have helped his plans for brother Anderson to tell about anyone leaving a contemporary thinking, scholarly church.  But I know beyond question that some of the scholars (???) are taking off like moody’s goose.  Hush!  Do not mention such things.  Only the poor in brains are leaving the old church.
    “Right-brained people just find it hard to connect with the left-brained church.”  Well, of course, if that is the way God made us, why bother folks with such lamebrain theology?  Some folks might try to swallow the

68

Anderson fables but there are some who will not be convinced.  Again, how does brother Anderson know about that, “…left-brained church?”
I hesitate not one second to state that brother Anderson displays his crass ignorance when he declares, “The roots of our Restoration Movement which gave root to Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ, ran deep into the left-brain intellectual soil of the nineteenth century…”  I’ve heard any number of Missionary Baptist Preachers make similar statements about the roots of the Church of Christ.  The issue switches from brains to roots.  Did the brains develop the roots or did the roots develop the brains?  Any number of liberals are bleating the same sounds.  It may fit the brain of brother Anderson to be rooted in a movement but there are thousands of people who are rooted and grounded in the truth of God’s Word.  We hold no ties with a mere movement.  Just exactly which tenant of faith and practice have we dragged out of a movement?  Whatever it might be it has to be due to a split brain.  “God made us that way.”  When we serve the devil, it has to be because of brain conflict.  With all the liberal, scatterbrained concoctions being copied from the cults, this is the reason many folks do not have any brains left when it comes to an objective study of the Bible.
    I demand of any writer who proposes to obtain my respect as a reader, that all conclusions must be valid, and therefore must be based upon valid premises.  Brother Anderson assumes and asserts some views about the brain and then he takes a wild, long leap trying to act as if he has proved his assumptions.  He gets about as close as he could get in proving that the moon is made of green cheese.  Liberals do not operate from valid premises.  I’ve read from all kinds of those fellows and I repeat that not one of them makes any sort of objective sense.
    Brother G. K. Wallace said, “We are silly enough, without trying to be sillier.”  My brother Anderson reaches without trying to be sillier.”  My brother Anderson reaches the peak  when he describes some people by lamenting, “…even though God wired up some of them to be right-

69

brained.”  If God wired up the brains before people got initiated, their brains cannot be rewired, so it follows that a bunch of helpless fools should not be criticized for their actions.  Leave the Morons to be at peace riding their oxen.  Calvinism, Pentecostalism, liberalism and Campbellism is a mixed-up brew for Nut Twisters to serve.
    “God is leading us…”  “Last Sunday… the Spirit of God fell in rich measure on that place.”  (Preston Road-w.c.)  When God wires you up and the Spirit falls on you in rich measure, make no mistake, you have been renewed.  You’ve got it and you feel it and you tell it and you yell it…at Preston Road.  God can use you like he is using, “Rubel Shelly, Robert E. Webber, Jim Woodroof, Roland Allen, Leonard Allen, William Willimon, Richard Hughes, Gordon Borror, Max Sucado, Richard Foster, Henry Mouwen, and Calvin Miller, “…to unpack our brains … freeing us…releasing us…” How many other denominational pastors and the rest are left-wing liberals, then why will the Preston Road Church not call and use all sorts of sectarians?  If God is using those fellows, looks like Lynn’s Church could use them.  Why not?  If God is using brother Anderson in twisting the nuts off the old ship of Zion at different places, then why can’t God use all those other Nut Twisters wherever brother Anderson goes?  Why will some bishops only use brother Anderson but not use those other fellows who are being used by Jehovah?  When bishops invite brother Anderson they should let God use some sectarian pastor also.  Why limit God?  Why not use a bevy of women?  Why only the men?  Brother Anderson had to say something.  It is ridiculous for one who claims to be a gospel preacher to accuse God of using false teachers to free and release us from the past.  That makes as much sense as the howling mob babbling for the release of Barabbas.
    When our Holy Spirit enlightened brother gets off his seat of subjectivity long enough to deal with some objective facts and tries to prove his pointless prattling

70

about God wiring peoples brain, then his writings might approach the mark of having some credibility.  We know for a fact, unquestionably, indisputably, and demonstratively that liberals do not feel constrained to offer proof.  When Rubel Shelly wrote his booklet, “Liberalisms Threat To The Church,” he described the dishonesty among liberals.  In a published article Ruble Said, “O For An Honest False Teacher.”  Brother Guy Woods declared, “Give a false teacher a little rope, and he will hang himself every time.”  Our liberal brethren only need a little thread and they will hang themselves.  Any time a preacher hangs himself it is due to his brain being wired up that way.  “It is God who wires us up.”

71

Chapter 9
Weird, Old, Traditional, Outmoded, Boring, Dull, Dry, Tasteless, Nonsense Congregations
    Brother Anderson doesn’t like the church as it is so he visualizes himself as an agent fully qualified to change the church.  When he gets through we will have just another denomination.  He certainly doesn't like the way Christians sing.  Our brother says, “And for the nonchurched know?  Let brother Lynn tell us how much Bible his buddies among the “churched” actually know.  I have been greatly impressed with how little Biblical knowledge the liberal element actually possesses.  It isn’t the music which disturbs brother Anderson.  He needs to stir up discontent, cause people to become disgruntled with the status quo and then he can affect his real goal.  Make people feel ashamed of their singing, but do not change their contributing on Sundays.  Never!  He can have him a really real Community Church.  When all the forms get changed.
    We are told that, “many church goers find ‘church music’ boring and unrelated to life.”  The biggest blunder being made by brother Anderson is that he has no earthly for heavenly idea as to what the church is.  When will he condescend to put the church of Christ ahead of and before the NEEDS of worldly heathens?  He borrows the language of Ashdod as do so many others.  Many “church goers” need to learn what the church is.  The church is comprised of the people.  The people go to worship, i.e., the church

72


goes to worship God.  The church does not go to church, but in ignorance many people, “go to church” and of course, they get bored.  They have no intention or purpose in going to a place to worship.  They are ignorant of true worship and in keeping with the Anderson concept, their NEEDS are the first priority.  What God commands is boring to a materialistic, worldly-minded, semi-illiterate population whose brains have been conditioned by TV bloaks, who are themselves too dense for anything of real value.  We do not even have sense enough to entertain ourselves any more since relying upon the TV industry so long, and now brother A and other s are trying to compete with television and provide entertainment through the churches.  In such episodes, church buildings need two sets of front steps.  One for right-brained and one for left-brained so each can park their brains on the door steps before entering the buildings.
    When brother Anderson gets the church changed, he will still have a half-baked crew of neophytes who want to do as they please.  If they cannot control, Schaller says, “They will vote with their feet…” and brother Anderson repeats, “They quietly vote with their feet.”  It looks like a lot of feet have been voting in the Disciples denomination.  They have provided, “music that makes sense” but please don’t tell our brother how much they are dwindling.  The liberals are shrinking.
    Brother A says, “…the church must change by speaking a variety of musical heart languages.”  He can surely see what so many others are seeing in the wild, mad rush to entertain the laity who have laid aside their Biblers.  A variety might include bongo drums, cow bells, and bull horns.  I suppose some folks need such noises.
The old songs are like old wineskins and they, “…may not stretch around the vintage of new spiritual growth.”  Those old song will stretch much farther than brother Anderson can stretch.  Do those old songs convey spiritual truth?  Are they just a pack of traditional lies?  When old songs convey spiritual truths, do those spiritual truths promote spiritual growth?  But they, “…may not stretch.”

73

Who says so and why?  Brother Anderson is very subtle in discrediting the old songs because he wants the church to become another cult, a community church affair.
    Brother Anderson should get busy and write a new National Anthem.  The one which is used so often is boring to a gang of misfits, dimwits, half-wits and ape-heads.  He should resolve the problem at once.  A lot of people seem to tolerate the “national Anthem,”  “Take Me Our To The Ball Game,”  and any number of old songs, but our Change Agents will soon remedy all of that.
    In Nashville, Tennessee there is an international production known as, “The Grand Ole Opry.”  That event is now seventy years old.  I have never been to the Grand Ole Opry but multiplied millions of people have attended those homespun presentations and the crowds are still phenomenal.  The style and formats have not changed but surely brother Change Agent Anderson will bring RENEWAL to the Opry.  Oh yes, all those teeming thousands of people who attend the Opry need a Change Agent.  Wonder if the Opry no longer connects?  Ask brother Anderson.
    Brother Anderson doesn’t dislike the exercise of rote dollars being dropped by rate.  That doesn’t get boring and that is a sound that makes sense to all the changing Nut Twisters.
    I really get amused each time I read where some expert begins to contend for that which is “Contemporary.”  The “antics of semantics” really goes berserk in caviling for a contemporary church with contemporary services for contemporary people who are morbidly temporary.
    Brother Anderson tries to convince us that “we need more contemporary music.”  If contemporary means that which is current, may I please ask what some few thousand congregations of the church of Christ are currently doing as brethren meet together and sing during worship?
    Our brother makes a distinction in that which is traditional and that which is contemporary.  If “Rock of Ages” is being used by brethren all over the world-and it

74

is-how contemporary are the brethren and how current is “Rock of Ages?”  Brother Anderson’s distinction is sheer nonsense, used in order to disparage the old songs.  Yes sir!  We gotta have “music that makes sense.”  The church doesn’t make sense and the language doesn’t make sense and the music doesn’t make sense but the collection still makes sense.  Watch the language.  Not the expressions.  Embellish the scenery when needed.  Did you know that over at Lynn’s Church, “a trio sang to the congregation during the Lord’s Supper?”  “Their beautiful and poignant song set up our communion reflection.”  Did that trio sing during brother Anderson’s sermon?  Why not? Will they sing when a sister prays?  Why not?
    Brother A says, “In some camps among Church of Christ folk it is ‘unscriptural’ to have choirs or singing groups…”  In some of those dismal traditional camps it is unscriptural to play mechanical music during worship.  Our brother cannot oppose mechanical music, dancing, burning of incense, counting beads, or other matters which connect with people needs.
Brother Anderson has made the same fool-hearty assertions of Ruble Shelly when he wants his “presentational” music.  It isn’t enjoyable to expose such sophistry but it is needful.  After the passing of time and the succession of many years, brother Anderson has found something which multiplied thousands of sober, sane and sensible brethren have never found before.  The half has never yet been found and told but now it has finally been revealed to Shelly, Anderson et. al.  Their  song of delight is “Eureka.”  They found what they wanted to find.  Like the Catholics who have hunted for centuries trying to find Peter’s bones.  Everybody knew they would find those bones and also they would find them where they needed to find them.  They were right down under, “Saint Peter’s Church” in Rome.
    When a liberal brother needs something and starts searching for it-make no mistake about it.  It will be found-even if it is a copycat event.
    When our astute brother looked at Ephesians 5:19 in

75

his NIV, he found “sings and make music in your hearts to the Lord.”  But he didn’t find, “even one song leader in the passage.”  “Didn’t even find an assembly.”  “Only Christian hearts, filled with the spirit.”  Well since the passage does not have Lynn Anderson’s name in it, the passage obviously omits him as a singer.
    Let brother Anderson try to explain by what authority he sings, based upon Ephesians 5:19.  Does hi sing?  Does he sing with and by authority or without authority?  If he sings by authority, how is this done since I cannot find “Lynn Anderson” mentioned in Ephesians 5:19?  If our brother sings without authority, he is condemned simply because we are commanded to do all in the name of or by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17).  If our brother sings by authority, then we must insist, beg and plead with him to tell us how he arrives at the authority for the practice.  Maybe he might tell us that he doesn’t need authority for what he does.  That would be the consistent thing to say in view of our brothers opinions.
    I would urge brother Anderson to cease and desist from further writing and trying to change the church, and take a refresher course on how to establish specific and generic authority.  It is exceedingly simple, but some folks have trouble finding that which they do not want to find.
    Brother Anderson found, “Only Christian hearts…”  I believe they call that plural down in Texas.  Were all those Christian hearts separate, scattered, and isolated from each other?  Those  Christian hearts were to sing but the singers would be by themselves when they were all alone.  Brother A didn’t find an assembly so each person sings his or her own songs when not in an assembly.
    Brother Anderson didn’t find an assembly but he did find, “speak to one another.”  He illustrates by saying, “My parents taught me it was rude to speak when someone else was speaking to me.  When we speak to one another,”  they coached, “We take turns.”  So if the illustration makes any sense at all, then we will be rude if more than one is singing.  But brother Anderson will let a trio sing during communion.  That would not be rude.  When the Anderson

76

choirs sing, they aren’t rude but all the rest of us are rude.  Your can swallow such shallow offerings if you have the stomach for such but I will excuse myself.  
    Our brother likes the NIV because it is a handy crutch for his scheme.  That perversion says, “speak to one another.”  The old King James says, “speaking to yourselves…”
    Brother Anderson flipped to Colossians 3:16 to see what he had missed.  He found that, “It is very difficult to learn while we are talking.  We must listen in order to learn.  To teach via songs, some listen while others learn.  Thus, rather than forbidding singing groups in worship, scripture actually enjoins them.”  That’s it folks!  Right our of Shelly’s mouth.  I would ask brother Lynn if he ever learned one word of one line of one song back yonder while he was so terribly rude and before he learned so much?  Does he know any old song by heart?  How did he learn and old song under such difficult and trying times?  It must have exhausted the poor brothers mentality to learn any verse of an old song while all the saints were singing to one another and acting so rude.  When Paul and Silas sang in the jail house they were so very rude.  Just like Jesus and His disciples who sang in an upper room.  Jesus did not have good manners like Lynn Anderson.  Even kindergartners learn by singing, but do not tell Lynn.
    Thousands of brethren and sisters have learned the melodies of hundreds of songs down through the years while all sang together but our dear, beloved brother Anderson has such a hard time learning, “While we are talking.”  Actually, no one should ever sing when others sing, because the non-singer can learn better if no one is singing.  Maybe there should be no singing at all so brother Lynn will be able to learn something.  Amen!
    If scripture enjoins singing groups then while all those in a group are singing they are very rude.  They are all talking at the same time, and the singing group does not learn anything.  “We must listen in order to learn.”  When a fellow has to say something, we do not expect much

77

depth.
    Brother Anderson has found something new which he has never found before.  The Ephesians and Colossian passages have now been understood.  Those scriptures actually enjoin choirs, quartets, ensembles, and whatever brother Lynn wants to find.
    I do not believe for a split second that any liberal is concerned about finding the truth.  For 30 years I have read multiplied thousands of pages from liberal writers and not one time have I even remotely found a consistent argument made by them and that includes the borrowed claptrap of brother Anderson relative to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.  Our brother makes a feeble effort to find in the two passages what he wants to find.  His effort is that which Rubel Shelly made at Woodmont Hills when he promoted his choirs.  I answered Shelly’s harangue in my book, “Rubels Case Against The Ignorant, Arrogant, Idolatrous, Traditional, Church Relative To Solos, Choirs, and Quartets, Or-Shelly On Presentation Music.”
The liberal brethren apparently feel no need to inspect their premises and conclusions for soundness.  Let us expose the flimsy search of brother Anderson on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16
    In Ephesians 5:19 we read, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”  I do not know whether brother Anderson has ever heard of reflexive pronouns.  Maybe he will find our about them ere long.  Ephesians 5:19 is a case in point of a reflexive pronoun.  The action is reflexive, simultaneous as we shall abundantly prove.  When Paul used “to yourselves” or “to one another,” in the Ephesians letter, do you not think that we might be able to learn if we would search?  Five times in the letter we read the expression, “one another.”
    In chapter 4:2 we note, “…forbearing one another in love.”  Brother Anderson will not allow a congregation to, “love one another” in a simultaneous manner.  That would be rude.  So in a congregation of five-hundred members, where only one can love at a time, it would take all day,

78

maybe all month-for liberals to get through with their love-making.  We know some Nashville lovers who have made the papers as a result of their escapades.  They prefer loving two at a time like many liberals.
    When we sing to one another we must not be rude and all sing at the same time just like no church should love each and all and every member at the same time.
    From Ephesians 4:25 we learn that, “…we are members one of another.”  Brother Anderson has searched and found that we are rude if we sing simultaneously.  We cannot talk while others talk-but of course he can dispense with his ipse-dixit where he needs a trio of young girls to sing.  When brother A pontificates that we cannot, may not, should not use Ephesians 5:19 for congregational singing then he will be faced with 4:25 which forbids any sort of congregational membership.  Will he meet us on these matters?  Never!  “Oh For An Honest False Teacher.”
    Please wait util our brother doctors Ephesians 4:25 and see what he prescribes.  Brother Anderson can be one member and act alone as one member toward all other members.  When he finishes, each member can take his turn and be a member, “one of another.”  Mercy sakes, how rude it would be for all the members to be embers one of another at the same time.  That would be as terrible as speaking one to another in songs, down in Texas.
    When we consider Ephesians 4:32, we read, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving you.”  If brother A will search, he might find that ye and you are plural words.  The ye and you are “be kind one to another…”  That is reciprocal over here in Tennessee and I trust it might be allowed to reciprocal at Preston Road.
    May all the members of a congregation be tenderhearted towards one another at the same time?  May all the members of a congregation forgive one another at the same time or must they abide by what brother Anderson has searched and found in Ephesians 5:19 and

79

Colossians 3:16?  Every heretic on earth will formulate some fool notion then begin to search to see what he can find in order to fill the cracks.
    Let’s do some searching from Ephesians 5”211 where the Holy Spirit wrote, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”  Brother Lynn has searched and no doubt the passage actually enjoins submitting “one at a time.”  Maybe people could submit as trios and some tie could be saved in the submitting.  It is very rude for several to be submissive to one another, each other and to yourselves in a reciprocal manner.  I do not relish exposing brother Change Agent Anderson but he hasn’t done his homework and that should be done before one writes a book.  Now, it my brother or anyone else would like to expose my ignorance, I will make myself available and we will learn what reflexive pronouns mean.
    Brother Anderson searched and found that Ephesians 5:19 enjoins presentation music, just like Rubel Shelly said.  The liberals have no problem eliminating reflexive and/or reciprocal pronouns from the Bible.  They have to ignore them in order to have their entertaining solos and choirs. The illustration given by brother Lynn regarding not talking while others are talking is a prejudicial piece of baseless babble contrived to prop up an excuse without a case.
    We now turn to some world renown Greek Grammarians and let them search and find something for brother Anderson-
    
    In his book, “New Testament Greek for Beginners,” J. Gresham Machen says, “Reflexive pronouns are pronouns that refer back to the subject of the clause.”
    “The reciprocal pronoun is, of one another, of each other.” William W. Goodwin of Harvard wrote in his book, A Greek Grammar, “The reflexive is sometimes used for the reciprocal… we will discover with one another (i.e. among ourselves).”
Eric Jay in his New Testament Greek, says, “The reciprocal pronoun translates the English ‘one another,’ each other…”
    James Hope Moulton discussed the reflexive and reciprocal pronoun in his A First Reader in New Testament Greek.  He states, “The reciprocal pronoun is one another (only plural).  The middle voice suggests reciprocal action between persons.  Cf. John 12:10-they took counsel among themselves.”
    In his Essentials of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers dealt with the reciprocal pronoun and stated, “In function it represents an interchange of a plural subject-‘let us love one another’-‘they burned in their lust one for another.’”
    C.F.D. Moule in An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek cites Colossians 3:13 as an example of the reflexive pronoun.  Paul stated, “Forbearing one another and forgiving one another…”  He also gives I Thessalonians 5:11 as a further example, where Paul wrote, “Wherefore comfort yourselves together…” We give one other citation by Moule, taken from Luke 23:12 where it is said, “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.”
    From Synonyms of the New Testament by Trench, we notice his comments regarding the reflexive pronoun as he states, “something belonging to each person in a group of people is place in the singular…” and he gives Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 as examples.  Paul is saying let “each person in a group of people” fulfil the action toward each person in the group.  I suppose Lynn will not read such stuff, but he certainly cannot be excused because of ignorance.  Trench gives many passages to show the reflexive or reciprocal nation of a reflexive pronoun.  Among those, he lists:
    Romans 1:24, “…to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.”
     Romans 2:15, “…and their thoughts the

81

meanwhile accusing or excusing one another.”
    Colossians 2:2, “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love…”
     We present our next case which is taken from A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light o Historical Research by A. T. Robertson.  Robertson says,  “The use of the reciprocal sense has just been discussed (cf. Personal pronouns as reflexive).  This pronoun brings out the mutual relations involved.” It is,  “reflexive in the reciprocal sense. I Corinthians 6:7, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.” I wonder how low Lynn’s voice will get when he tries to belittle Robertson’s usage of the Ephesians and Colossian passages?  Maybe Lynn will want to say, “But what about another passage somewhere?” It’s about time to repeat, it is sad that stupidity isn’t painful.
    It is also of interest that the following scriptures are given by Robertson to show the mutual relations and the plural actions of brethren.
    “Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (I Corinthians 5:13).
    “Judge in yourselves; is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (Corinthians 11:13).
“Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another…” (I Corinthians 6:7).
    I beg and plead with people to consider the unimpeachable proofs presented above.  If they can be squinted at, shrugged aside or ignored, I need to know.  I do not want to take an untenable position

Can the reader see how a liberal will present a faulty and feeble case?
    There’s no telling what kind of new treasures brother Anderson will find if he keeps digging up the materials laid down by Shelly.  When Rubel read I Corinthians 14:26, he found solos.  When Lynn read Rubel or elsewhere he found solos.  He says, “In I Corinthians 14:26, I found

82

something else that I had not included in my old sermon on worship in assemblies:  solos.”  “Speak, one at a time” (v. 27-NIV).  If worshippers are to “speak, one at a time” with a tongue, interpretation, or prophecy, then when some Christian brings a song, he or she should “speak” solo!  
    I will try to be nice for a while but I cannot believe that brother Anderson is so dense as to not see his blunder.  I will not say that he deliberately tries to deceive propel but I will say that his attempt is as false as it could be made.
    Our brother takes a passage completely out of its context, its time settings, and perverts it to try to help his case.  In Corinth, there were serioius problems over spiritual gifts which of course were supernatural gifts.  Paul laid hands on Timothy and imparted a spiritual gift (II Tim. 1:6).  In Ephesians, Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied (Acts 19:6).  Paul wanted to go to Rome that he might, “…impart unto you some spiritual gifts, to the end ye may be established” (Rom. 1:11).  Peter and John went to Samaria, “Then Laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17).
    After Paul saluted the church in Corinth he said, “So that ye come behind in no gift” (I Cor. 1:7).  In 3:16, Paul wrote, “know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”  In chapter 12:7 Paul discussed spiritual gifts further an said, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.”  They Paul moved on into chapter 14 for further discussion of spiritual gifts and their usage for edification.  Pray tell what is used for edification today?  Do we nee live apostles to speak to us?  Do we nee them to lay their hands on the members?  What more edification do we nee than that which is in the inspired scriptures?  Does brother Anderson know more God-given truth than that which is given in the Bible?  Does he know that I Corinthians 14 deals with spiritual gifts?  The brethren were not to be ignorant about spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12:1).  These were different gifts (v. 4).  There was a manifestation of those

83

gifts (v. 7).  The gifts were known, obvious, demonstrative (II Cor. 4:2).  Paul mentions such spiritual gifts as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophesy, discernment, tongues and interpretations (I Cor. 12:8-20).
    The apostle further declared, “God hath set some n the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues”  (II Cor. 12:28).
    We know beyond question, that in the context and due to the language used, praying and singing are mentioned as spiritual gifts.  Paul wrote, “For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.  What is it then?  I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also.  Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at they giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?  For thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified” (I Cor. 14:14-17).
    I know not how matters could be made simpler.  Whether the gift of praying or singing was used, there was to be understanding (v. 15).  Furthermore during the exercise of speaking with the gift of tongues such speaking was to be, “…by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret”  (I Cor. 14:27).  Interpret what?  Of course that which needed interpretation?  Most folks by searching can find that the supernatural miraculous speaking in tongues was that which needed to be interpreted.
I am ashamed of any brother who tries to use I Corinthians 14:26 as proof that we are to use solos today.  In the passage where brother Lynn found “solos” for the present, he also found, “a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, and an interpretation.”  These are

84

supernatural gifts.  Shame on our brother for twisting the Word of God so flagrantly.  There are five things listed in verse 26.  The psalm is among them.  Are four things miraculous and one is not?  Brother Anderson is that he is terribly confused or deliberately perverting the Word of God.  There is a world of difference  in saying, “The worshippers in Corinth were”-and “If worshippers are…”
    The man doesn’t live who can use I Corinthians 14:26 as Shelly and Anderson uses the passage without perverting, twisting, misusing, mishandling, and wresting the scripture to their own destruction.  I will stand by my exegesis of the texts and challenge the liberals to come forward and lets search and see what we can find.  The woods are full of sound brethren who will be happy to meet the Nut Twisters.  Brother A is like the Holy Roller who wants to bring in divine healing who wants to bring in divine healings.  Do folds at Preston Road handle rattlesnakes and hold healing services?  Ah, but we challenge brother Lynn to explain why he should not dabble in snake handling.
    The five gifts above, along with other spiritual gifts were, “…to be done unto edifying” (14:26).  I affirm that I Corinthians 14:26 has absolutely no relevance for a present day congregation engaged in worshipping God-no more than speaking in tongues.
    In I Corithians 14:34-35 Paul wrote, “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home:  for it is a shame for women to speak in church.”  Those women in Cornith were not given the spiritual gift of tongues, thus they were forbidden to speak but were to be silent.
Please notice very, very careful how brother Lynn Anderson expresses his statement as he perverts I Corinthians 14.  Read it slowly.  He says, “If worshippers ARE (caps mine-w.c.) to speak one at a time…”  No!  When

85

worshippers WERE to speak one at a time is the right and proper way to write the sentence.  Let’s try another.  “If worshippers ARE to perform miracles, including healing, supernatural revelations, speaking in tongues, etc….”
    No, it isn’t the singing in congregations which disturbs brother Anderson.  He wants to destroy the church of Christ to develop discontent.  In order to develop discontent, he has to disparage every solitary things about the church and get a following.  Music is a good topic to attack.  It helps to make fun of the old songs.
    Brother Anderson gives eleven value judgments about special music and what it can do to connect with some people.  What he must do is find biblical authority for his concerts, choirs and circus entertainment, which he will never do.  What he presents is of no more value than the hot air it takes to prattle such trite and useless opinions.
    Several of the opinions by our brother for special music have been given by the Digressive to support mechanical instruments in worship.  For example, “Remember, God has given gifted musical communicators to the body.  We don’t want to waste those treasures.”  Well we just wonder how brilliant one must be in order to make such an observation.  Bring on the women pastors brother Lynn.  Tis a shame to waste all those treasures.  Those who prattle for women preachers talk long and loud about the abilities of women.
Instrumental music will connect with the, “tastes and comfort zones” of many people so brother Anderson needs to practice what he preaches.  I’m sure he will when he can get enough actors and actresses lined up to take over the church.
    “Singing groups (and instrumental music-w.c.) can connect with a culture who are watchers and listeners, but not participators.”  Why that’s why the Catholic Priest drinks the cup while the laity are spectators and not participators.
    It would be interesting if some liberal would actually

86

make some semblance of an argument that made sense.  I realize that the singing of many congregations does not make sense to brother Anderson but thank God that brethren in those churches are not running around like a worm in hot ashes, stirring up discontent, making fun of and discrediting the singing of good brethren all over the country.  There is a judgment and a devil’s hell awaiting the Nut Twisters who sow discord among brethren (Prov. 6:19).  It would be far better to refuse to engage in dividing the church.  We do not need Change Agents with their ego trips.

87

Chapter 10
How To Manipulate Young Men and Maidens
Brother Anderson in a very subtle manner let the cat out of the bag when he wrote a few lines from Roberts Burns.  He tells us it was Burns who wrote about, “The best laid SCHEMES (caps mine-w.c.) O’mice and men…” Get ready to read about new schemes being introduced by the Nut Twisters.  Any scheme will work if there are enough nuts to be twisted and turned.  And just what might a scheme do?  It may be,  “a design, strategy, plot, using trickery, craftiness, cunning, chicanery, knavery, or foul play.”  We would never think that all the foul play and schemes of the devil used during the Digression thievery of yesteryear would be appropriated by the brethren who are changers today.  This chapter might be interesting beyond belief for some of our pacifistic souls who are enjoying their slumbering while the old ship of Zion is being dismantled.  Some disciples do not want to be disturbed during the storms.
    In chapter ten of this book, our brother Anderson writes about, “The Art Of Change Management.”  He says, “We have now arrived at the climatic section of this book.”  “Concepts in this and the next four chapters may be new to many of our readers..."” Of that, I am sure.  Many of our readers are so dense that biblical principles can be cast aside for the shames of men and they would never know the difference.  That is how a fellow can be so successful with schemes of change.
    Brother Anderson likes to write in the first pages of his book about the “fresh winds of change.”  We can find at least a dozen liberals who have copied that line and they like the gurgle and jabber about those fresh breezes.
    I believe it is pure meanness to go into a congregation

88

 posing as an “artist” and sow the seeds of chaos and howling winds.  This is the result of “fresh breezes.”  But those gentle, soft, zephyr, summer breezes get blowed up by the blow-off brothers.  We have been reading from any number of liberals who pop-off about,
    “fresh showers of blessings,”
    “blowing as a breath of spring,”
    “healthy fresh winds,”
    “fresh winds across the brotherhood.”
And now we actually have a brother who writes a book about the,
    “howling winds of change,”
    “winds of change howling at the church,”
    “chill winds of change,”
    “chill winds of change across culture.”
To those damnable, destructive, devastating winds, we must be certain to connect some expert wind bags who can blow strongly enough to develop howling winds.
    Jesus could still the storms of the sea and of course brother Anderson can calm the howling winds of change in one simple whiff.  Our liberal brethren do not like what they see in congregations which are at peace.  They disdain the unity of the spirit, so they are seeking diversity.  They know what will happen when liberalism barges in.  If they need case records, the country is filled with them.  The sordid situation is so sorry that some of the universities and so-called legal “ex-spurts” are holding seminars in order to explain how to alleviate the conflagration’s.
    Listen to those howling winds of change.  They are the ominous, portentous, omens augmenting trouble and thus they are styled “howling winds.”  An “artist” with all his loquacity, multilaquence, gift of gab, and blather cannot calm the contrary winds.  Talk is a cheap commodity  with a liberal.  The liberal desires to blow the church straight to hell in order to have his way.  Objection?  Tell us how the liberals destroyed the congregations in the 1800’s.
    “Change management is more nearly an art than a science.”  Change management of the Nut Twisters is manipulation and I will prove this.  To be an effective

89


changer, “definite skills are needed if we are to navigate change ‘artfully.’ “…it is a creative process.”  It is also, “…a cooperative process.”  To change the church we need artists who are skilled, who are able to create change and who can enlist the cooperation of people who can be aroused to discontent.
    Brother Anderson does not like the word “manipulator.”  Certainly not! A wolf doesn’t like to look like wolf when it gets ready to devour the sheep.  That kind of wolf wants to look like an innocent sheep.  Never would a change artist scheme and plot, manipulate and mastermind to create howling winds in the church.  Howling winds are shipped by dodo bird, who migrate from Mars.  Change Agents whisper gently, softly and never secretly.  “…Understand that we do not mean to imply that a leader (change manager-w.c.) is a  manipulator .”  Who would ever admit that we have manipulators?  We do not need implication when explicit statements are available for all to see.  Things can be explicit without being implications.
    Brother A admits that with the “chill winds of change” there is, “…the ensuing chaos.”  Apparently the church needs “ensuing chaos.”  Jesus died for that wonderful spirit.  Every plowshare should be turned into a sword and all pruning hooks into spears in order to create such blessed chaos.  I sincerely ask if all church members have gone completely insane?  Will we follow?
    I do not believe that chaos in a congregation will develop when brethren behave themselves.  It is not the will of Christ for strife, ill-will and discontent to be created within the church.  Surely we know that much, or do we?  Brother A says we need to, “Understand the inflammatory nature of change.”  And how!  That’s exactly why every elder, preacher, deacon, member, grandmother, and mother needs to know the history of DIGRESSION with its thievery, artistic skills, and ensuing chaos.  Some of us have heard the wind blow before and we know a little bit of history.

90

    When artists have the, “…skills of effective change management,” they can alleviate the “serious disruptions” which otherwise might ensue.  Brother Anderson believes he knows, “HOW TO CHANGE.”  So we will learn how to change without even a wind, wave, or ripple.
    We can mange change if we, “proceed with caution.”  What is there about being righteous for change that demands caution?  A cautious church will hire an expert who has convinced people that he is an expert.  The expert will proceed very carefully in his brainwashing mathodology.  His will be familiar with all the other experts who have written books on “How To Change.”  He will memorize Schaller’s, “Strategies For Change” and “The Change Agent.”  He will be abreast of Barna and Willimon et. al.  He will know how to infiltrate the church because he is skillful as an artist.  Can you be so dumb as to think that Jesus was twitching, shaking, frightened and had to, “proceed with caution” as he obeyed the Father?
    In order to have change resulting in mutiny on the ship, there must be a plan of operation.  This is known as “Planned Change” or “Strategies For Change.”  Before effective change can occur there must be created an atmosphere of discontent and tension within a congregation.  “But this tension is essential…”  I am insistent, repeating, and repeating this about “discontent.”
    “While some chaos cannot be entirely avoided as we face the chill winds of change, the chaos can be significantly minimized.”  Now what does that mean or what does it not mean”  It can mean bashing out the brains with baseball bats when a Change Agent meets resisters.  It could mean manipulating and scheming among the members, as cheap politicians are prone to do.

91


Chapter 11
Just Read the Old Christian Standard If You Really Want To Know About ‘Getting Change Into Your System’
    Do you wonder how liberal brethren can convince themselves and others that what they are saying is new?  Brother Anderson wrote, “Concepts in this and the next four chapters may be new to many of our readers…”  It is beyond question that innovations, divisions, splits, and general hellisness is new to, “…many of our readers .”  Biblical teaching regard false teachers discord and cultism is “…new to many of our readers.”  If some of “our readers” lived one hundred years, Bibles teaching regarding division would still be new to them.  It is certainly true that the ignorant fall prey to con-artists.  It is also true so many times that ignorance is bliss.  That explains why so many church members can shout, clap and babble when howling winds are blowing.
    I have read the old liberal, digressive Christian Standard and the liberal leanings which is advocated.  I have also read the heated exchanges between the Gospel Advocate writers and the Christian Church Change Agents.  Brother Anderson may believe that the things he advocates are NEW to his readers, but I beg and plead with him to tell us one thing he advocates which has not already been tried by the old liberals in days gone by.  Our brother is not the original thinker that he would have “many of our readers” to believe.
    Do you know what it means to change a system?  BrotherAnderson declares, “To change a church is to change a system.”  A system is comprised if am “method,

92

organization, scheme, design, arrangement, order, plan, rule, or routine”  When we change the church we change a system.
    To me, it takes a lot of “brass” to change the church.  The “system” which brother A undercuts is not a big corporate initiate.  It is not an association or synod nor is it a confederation.  The church is comprised of autonomous congregations and it just seems that our brother refuses to think about the very small congregations which are comprised of small groups of church members over the world.  Give a liberal a pen or a soap box and the first thing they do is to begin prattling about big churches, big crowds, big ideas, big sects, big brains and big changes.  They need to realize, yet I do not think they will-that they are to going to change every congregation in the world, when they change the large, rich, affluent, gat-cat congregations.  That did not happen when the old modernists and liberals stole the big churches during the last century.  They  change the church into a weak, sickly, spineless denomination.  The results of some congregations changing left a divided spectacle with domed and damned souls in its wake.
    In many of our cities where the Nut Twisters have been able to operate, there is division.  Brethren within congregations shun each other with disdain.  Change the church?  You mean split, divide, sever, part separate, rend and burst asunder like the belly of old Judas Iscariot, all under the umbrella of love.
    Brother Anderson says, “I believe Jesus designed the church to be such a learning organization, so that it can flex to connect with any cultural setting.”  Is “the church” which needs to flex, the entire universal church?  We know how the universal, Catholic Church can flex when the College of Cardinals and the Pope hands down their strategies.  We understand how the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. can flex when directives are passed along.  When brother Anderson writes about, “the church,” I would remind him that he  doesn’t that he doesn’t speak for me.  Is he thinking of something like the Episcopal Church, or the Anglican

93

Church?  When brother A writes about the church connecting with culture, he demonstrates an exceeding amount of shallow thinking for he plainly reminds us that, “Culture is ever changing.”  Since culture is so far advanced and has left the church so far behind, the church is not connecting due to the enormous gap, (which is imaginary in left- or right-brained pastors) and of course culture is speeding ahead as if on eagles wings-so what kind of super, angel, Agent, will it take to contact, connect, and command “the church” in order for “the church” to fly fast enough to refuel in orbit with culture?  Brother Anderson will be the man.  H will supersede any astronaut flying a command ship.  His feat will be phenomenal far beyond anything which happens beyond the azure blue.  If culture is flying away so fast, how will Anderson’s church be able to get in sight of culture?  If the Anderson church does connect, it will need to change, even at the split second it connects or it will be out of touch with culture.
    That impasse calls for another radical change which will be necessary upon the part of the Change Agent Nut Twister.  He will need to be learned in all the ways of the different cultures in order to tell “the church” how to manage change.  He will have to change with any given culture as it continually changes.  When he moves from one cultural setting to another, he will have to change, adapt, move, plan, devise, scheme, and be so busy looking at culture that he will have no time for God, but of course the liberal already knows that God doesn’t count in the liberal scheme of affairs.
    In a note from George Barna, he says, “…our culture is redefined every 3-5 years.”  I do not know how George knows but that being the case our Nut Twisters are going to be a busy crew.  “The farther they go the behinder they get.”
    The new version for the Nut Twister is, “And upon the culture, I will build my church.”  That is not about it but that’s it (Quoth N.B.H.).  If bother Anderson is not advocating the church to be built on culture, then there’s not a cow in Texas!  He couldn’t car less about the tried

94

and sure foundation which is laid any which is Christ (I Cor. 3:10-11)  His faulty, flimsy, flimflam system is culture-period!  Please do not forget, “We must also factor in the much larger issue of cultural change.”  “These are not the heart languages of today’s culture.”   “…the culture moved on without us.”  “We are relearning how to connect with the culture.”  “We must dance lightly on the balls of our feet in order to connect with an ever-changing culture.”  We must, “Change strategies and formats in order to connect with an ever-changing culture.”  We must “plant new congregations that will be more culturally appropriate to our times…”  The “…underlying paradigms of our culture are shifting so swiftly…” “A variety of heart doors beckon from our pluralistic and rapidly changing culture.”  We need to, “…reach an ever-changing culture.”  We need to, “…worship more vibrantly and authentically in the heart language of the culture.”  “Change will not come completely as long as the culture keeps changing.”  But the culture keeps changing…”
    Well by now it should seem obvious as to the purposes of brother Anderson while leading us along by the reins of culture.  Can he tell us what a congregation is like which exists in the pluralistic culture?  What would different congregations be like scattered throughout a pluralistic culture?
    Since the church must connect with culture, will brother Anderson be brave enough to tell us what the church does in a polygamous culture?  What does it do in a polygamous culture?  For certain must we learn how to get connected in the Sodomite culture.  The Change Agent will not hesitate to explain how to connect with homosexuals.  The all important and essential thing is to be able to brag and boast about growing.  How does brother Anderson's church connect with the homosexuals?  Please let him explain.  I do not mean any harm at all when I ask how many homosexuals are on the staff at Preston Road.  I insist that they should open up to culture

95

immediately.
    Brother Anderson makes the claim that God wired up some folks to be left-brained and others to be right-brained.  The Sodomite claims that God wired them up and they cannot help themselves.  Their claim is as valid as the claim of brother Anderson, but I want to know which sodomite connects with the Preston Road pulpit.  A silly smirch will not suffice.  All that poppycock of brother Anderson which he has borrowed from Change Agents relative to culture, will pose insurmountable problems for him-if he tries to be governed by the Word of God.
    George Barna has just released a video titled, “The Church In A Changing Culture.”  I doubt not that ere long we will hear from brother Anderson and other Change Agents who will be parroting the Barna video as they try to change the church into another cult.
    Try not to forget please.  If the church does change every 3 to 5 years, as per Barna-then every congregation and every preacher will be nothing more than chameleons scrambling to change colors with every little breeze blown by some pop-off Nut Twister.
    How must the church be changed?  Well, according to brother Anderson there are, “Laws Of Organizational Change” and these must be brought into your system.  The reason brother A knows about those “Laws Of Organizational Change” is because Peter Senge wrote a book and had a chapter therein with the above title.
    I suppose brother Lynn has learned by now that there is no Worldwide, National, State, or District Organization connected with the church of Christ.  I would hope that he realizes that the church is comprised of local, independent autonomous congregations.
    It is interesting to learn that, “…Jesus designed the church to be such a learning organization, so that it can flex to connect with any cultural setting.”  Is that “organization” some sort of universal organization?  Is “the church” organization designed so “it” can flex?  What is, “the church” organization?  It looks like our brother should get a few things correct but such will never be possible

96

while copying from the sects.
    Is our brother contending for Organization Change within the local congregation?  Grant for a moment that such is the-well, a sort of hidden, convert, idea-and if such be the idea, I have not learned exactly how the local church Organizational structure is to change.  Could someone get our brother to clarify and elucidate?
    When discussing organizational change and culture our good brother will be consistent I’m sure and put some women over the Universal Church or over the local congregations.  Has our brother ever heard of Matriarchal Societies?  Does he know what mores, folkways, and tribal customs might be found in some cultures?  We plead with brethren to wake up.
    How many women preachers are there at Preston Road?  Let brother Anderson doctor on that as he changes the organizational structure of the church.
    Ah, but he thinks that the tension which is developed over change “is essential to creating new…organizational culture and organizational psychology.”
    Back in 1972, Schaller stressed, “Organizational Change.”  He said, “Skill in this discipline is an essential part of the equipment of the Change Agent.”  In fact Schaller wrote an entire chapter on “Organizational Change.”  I could take the chapter and rewrite it and have an entire book on change and no doubt some of my brethren would think that I have been somewhere.
    It was Schaller who wrote about getting Organizational Change into a system.  Brother Anderson has written about how to get change into the system.
    Brother Anderson has written, “Before learning Peter Senges, ‘Laws Of Organizational Change,’ I HAD WORKED OUT A FEW PRINCIPLES FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE OF HOW CHANGE WON’T COME INTO YOUR SYSTEM.”(caps mine-w.c.).  Oops! Senge wrote his book in 1990.  Schaller wrote, “The Change Agent” in 1972.  Anderson wrote his book in 1994.  The wonderful things

97

which brother Anderson worked out from his, “own experience,” included:
    1.  “Change will not come until a group sees the need to change.”
    2.  “Change will not come without resistance.”
    3.  “Change won’t come without trust.”
    4.  “Change won’t come without ownership in the change process.”
    5.  “Change won’t come without disequilibrium.”
We have proven beforehand that those same ideas, even the same words are used by earlier writers.  I can take Schaller, Barna, and Willimon and work out some exciting experiences-but I just know brother Anderson would not do that.
    Brother Anderson wrote, “SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY I COOKED UP A LITTLE ANTIBIOTIC FOR DISEQUILIBRIUM:  TWO FACTS AND TWO STRATEGIES” (caps mine-w.c.).  I don not mean to imply, insinuate, suggest or infer anything about brother Anderson as a Cook, but may I humbly and lovingly ask where he got the ingredients for his cooking?  Before brother Anderson became a chef, others were brewing the same sort of elixir to appease and satisfy the liberal gut.  It doesn’t take much expertise upon my part to be a cook, if I can use the cookbooks written by others.  Of course every recipe I use, I had to copy it from others.  I am not brilliant enough to originate my own menu.
    Our brother Lynn has actuarially “cooked up” a strategy of change which is to “weave.”  That weaving means to, “Alternate between safety and disequilibrium.”  It means when your church is, “approaching the limits of tolerance back off.”  “Talk about familiar and safe things for a while.”  “Weave our and in…weave out… weave back in… weave our again… weave back… Weave.  Two steps froward and one step back.”  Such insane ideas have no place among decent people.  How any man who claims to be a gospel preacher could print such sick ideas is beyond me.  And to thing that brother Anderson wrote on pages 230-234 about honesty, strength and integrity.  Gook Lord please help

98

us!  Let no man censure me for what I have in answer to brother Lynn Anderson-the Change Agent, the weaver.  The plan of the old communists included taking two steps forward and one step froward and one step backwards, but blow out the brains of all who resisted.  It worked for a while.
    Brethren, brother Anderson calls it weaving.  I call it manipulation.  Oh how he objects to the idea of manipulation.  He thinks, “it is a” very wrong idea that the role of the Change Agent is to manipulate others…”  “We do not mean to imply that a leader is a manipulator.”  Brother Anderson is opposed to, “heavy-handedness manipulation” but he approves of taking “a church to brinkmanship” then backing off from the weaving strategy.  “When we actually start from the beginning and change our perceptions, we will be on our way to fundamental change and may learn to move from manipulation to navigator.”  Amen!
Do you counteract with opposition when the liberals begin to sing their sleazy songs for stealing the church?  If you do, then you may be, “dysfunctional.”  In order to minimize chaos brother Anderson will teach us to, “Decipher The Difference Between Honest Dissent And Dysfunction.”  In one page of his book our brother uses the word, “dysfunctional” some fourteen times and he explains in such lucid terms the church member who is so demented, distraught, degraded and dysfunctional will not oppose the wonderful, glorious efforts of change.
    Brother Anderson can see some folks in the church as “dysfunctional.” Maybe we better set down with Noah for a minute and see if that is one concerning whom we refuse to be of which.  Webster tells us that a disfunctional person is one who is, “impaired functionally as an organ of the body.”  Well the denotes weakness, deterioration, injury, damage and or the lessen.  Now we can discern why brother Anderson is so compassionately distressed about all the traditional, dysfunctional church members.  He has said a lot about right-brained and left-brained folks and I do wish he had written an entire chapter about the lamebrain dysfunctional, traditional-bound, retardant

99

who will not help steal congregations for the liberals.
    We learn that, “Most enterprises (business, educational, and the like) know what to do with dysfunctional people.”  “They any send them for treatment…”  “But they do not reward them for disfunctioning all over a healthy organization.”  “However, in the church… we frequently treat disfunctional people as if they were responsible players.”  “By rewarding them, we empower them and allow them to take the church hostage.”  “…it is unloving to treat a disfunctional person as if he or she were functional.”  We need to look at the dysfunctioanl church member and “differentiate them from responsible dissenters.”
    Brother Anderson can squirm, wiggle, and weave all he pleases and a few souls may be suckered into cheering him along as he labels those who object to his schemes.  To lavel certain people as, “dysfunctional” is but another cowardly way to put down, denigrate, and poke fun at the people who have some conviction, backbone and courage.
    The church thieves of yesterday babbled the same sort of nonsense against brethren who stood up against digressive innovations and I would think that brother Anderson should be aware of those devilish strategies.
    Maybe we need to be sent off for “treatment” during all the time of discontent chaos and radical change being caused by Change Agents.
    When a church is healthy, the dysfunctional fellow is not rewarded but the Nut Twister is reward by inviting him in to create chaos so he can change the church.  That would pose the question as to who needs treatments.  The sowers of discord, the creators of chaos and the distillers of discontent need to be treated with the sharp toes of a good stiff Texas boot and move them on out.
    I suppose the man who is willing to stand against the wiles of the devil should not be treated as a “responsible player.”  How tragic that the Change Agent is so very responsible and the resister is irresponsible.
    The churches being taken hostage by dysfunctional people and that is bad, bad, bad.  Someone is boarding the

100

ship, crating howling winds, causing mutiny in order to keep the ship from being taken hostage.  Brethren, this is sick.  How illiterate must I be in order not to discern and identify the real troublemakers in the church.  It is beside the point whether the church needs to change.  The point needs to be addressed as to  who the troublemakers are.  These are the truly dysfunctional disturbers of peace and unity.  We can cite many damaged models but the liberals do not like to look at the rubbish left behind them.
    It is good that brother A does not think every brother who objects to change is dysfunctional.  But why the long discourse about those weak folks?  What is the point if it is not to disparage brethren who will not pamper and pay for Nut Twisters to tear down the church and revamp it?

101

Chapter 12
Take Your Marbles and Leave
    Brother Anderson trails off again after some authority figure, accepts his ipse-dixit and then attempts to build a case for suckers in the church.  William Bridges is referred to as one who distinguishes between, “transition and change.”  He states that change is what happens, “out there.”  “Change is external Transition is internal.”  “…triggered by the external change.”  It is like leaving Egypt and going to the Promised Land.  But there has to be a Moses to lead the people to the peaceful paradise flowing with milk and honey.  Brother A is the new Moses and his promises have never been equaled.  He can present visions of, “What is will be like on the other side of the river,” even though he declares that we have not been this way before.  People will tolerate the carpetbaggers if they promise that, “the givernment will let evah body have ten acres and mule.” Somebody said somebody said, “There is a sucker born every minute.”  Lil Liz said, “I want to know where the rest came from.”  I can certainly tell where a large segment of them can be found.
    When the Nut Twisters are turned loose they promise that the, “core values” will be preserved.  “The only valid reason to change things in a church is precisely to better preserve and perpetuate core values.”  Of course that means that a great many people who are opposed to change do not have sense enough to know what those core values are.  What a predicament!  The core values mean keeping, “…the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  Our erudite brother speaks about the, “essentials of faith” and he asks, “What are the ‘essentials’?”  “For lists of  the ‘essentials’ and ‘nonessentials,’ you will have to consult

102

someone much wiser than I.”  Think of the above coming from one who has the audacity to disparage, “the rural mindset.”
    We must keep core values.  We must keep the faith.  We must keep the essentials.  A Change Agent must know what the core values, the faith, and the essentials are in order not to change them, but brother Anderson isn’t wise enough to know what is essential and what is nonessential.  He doesn’t  know what is required and what is not required.  One soon learns how unwise brother Anderson is as one begins reading “Navigating The Winds Of Change.”  If one does not know what is essential after being the Change Agent for over three decades, it isn’t any wonder that the church is in such a sorry, sordid, disgraceful mess in so many places.
“Like our forefathers in 1860, we are learning how to be the church that connects.”  Pray tell what happened in 1860 which is so important and which we need to learn?  I know for a fact that digression was on the rampage in 1860.  Come now and explain if we need to learn how to develop the Christian Church?  We insist that brother Lynn Anderson attempt to explain why he should not join the Christian Church.  It connects exactly into the form and fashioning which he is preaching.
    In 1849 the Old Missionary Society began and in 1851 the play-boy set introduced their melodeon and Midway, Kentucky.  The hue and cry of the new liberals is identical with the old liberals.
    The 1860’s was a time of wholesale departing from the faith.  Brother Lynn must think his readers are all morons riding an ox.  He actually extols the forefathers, who were nothing more than a gang of traitors selling out to the devil.  They go connected.
    In 1855, Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb began the Gospel Advocate Paper as a means of opposing Digression.  I have very carefully checked the articles which appeared in the Old Advocate and which discussed the thievery of, “our forefathers.”  Brother David Lipscomb wrote a number of articles in which he specifically

103

addressed the Missionary Society.  I would advise brother Anderson to stray away from the field of Church History, if is concept of 1860 is the best he can do.
    The Christian Standard was launched on April 7, 1866 with Isaac Errett as editor.  Errett and the Standard became the main vehicle  of liberalism.  J.S. Lamar did a compromising piece of journalistic arrogance while attempting to praise our “forefather” Erret.  David Lipscomb wrote as answer to Lamar which appeared in the Gospel Advocate and which is of interest.  He Said, “In one word, Brother Lamar’s theory as to the origin of the Christian Standard is, that the whole enterprise was projected by, the leading minds among the brotherhood,’ and that those, ‘leading minds’ were ‘wiser, sweeter, better’ than the ‘unlovely and earth-born spirit’ which dominated such papers as the American Christian Review, Lard’s Quarterly, and the Gospel Advocate, and inspired such men as Benjamin Franklin, Tolbert Fanning, Moses E. Lard, David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell, and Phillip s. Fall such is brother Lamar’s theory.”
    The preceding is set for the in order to show some of the good men who were opposed by the “forefathers’ of brother Lynn and from whom he can learn so much.  Instead of inviting men to come into congregations and tell people how to become a church that connects like the Christian Church, brethren need to withdraw from the divisive heretics.
     Brother Anderson thinks those fresh, new, chilling, howling, gentle breezes are being blown across the brotherhood by the great breath of God.  If God is blowing I cannot see why brother Anderson needs to blow throughout 270 pages.  Why is it that people like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Reverent Ike, Tammy Faye, Aimee Semple McPherson and Brother Anderson would all say, “…we are caught up in the stream of a new and mighty movement of God.  He is unleashing something in our world that we have not seen in a long long time.”  “He is changing nearly every religious body.”  Hi is?  Really” God is changing the Baptists, Methodists,

104

Holiness, Adventists, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc, etc?  Poor brother Lynn!  Is such palaver the result of getting a d. Min.?
    “…across our land God is awakening a new spirit of prayer.”  The Preston Road Church has a purpose to do the will of God,”…in the power of the Holy Spirit.”  That results in some actually lifting “holy hands.”  “…last Sunday was one of those special days when the Spirit of God fell in rich measure on that place.”  “God is leading us…”  “God is using the pens of writers like Max Lucado, (wow-what a right-brainer) Richard Foster, Henry Nouwen, and Calvin Miller to unpack our right brains…”  “No rush, let God choose the timing.”  Hopefully, some elders will allow their brains to get unpacked and send liberal wolves where they need to be.
    No Holy Roller can excel brother Lynn in his testimony.  One would be just as truthful to testify about such feats as raising the dead.  The Apostle Don Finto began his wayward journey by amazing testimonies.  Ere long brother Anderson should proclaim his own apostolic office.
    If God is pouring our the Holy Spirit at Preston Road why is he not doing the same everywhere else?  Why do I have to read brother Anderson’s book?  Why will the Spirit of God not fall on me?  There’s no telling what kind of Nut Twister I might be if I could get anointed with Nut Twister oil.
    When brother Anderson gets filled with more lying wonders, there will be plenty of believers who will be carried about by his wind.
    I suspect it fuels the bursting ego for our brother to demean, belittle, poke fun at and ridicule conservative brethren.  This is standard procedures among the liberals.  Someone asks, “But do you not ridicule the liberals?”  Indeed I do but unlike the liberals I do not make fun and run.  None of the masters of ridicule will be willing to have their foolishness debated.  It isn’t because they are too sweet, kind, loving and gentle.
    Brother Anderson can berate the, “middle-class North

105

American settings, messy buildings, sloppy programs, haphazard educational offerings, outdated methods irrelevant issues and bad music…”  The other side appears as a bit of heaven.
“Those outdated forms appeal primarily to a small nostalgic segment who may appreciate the sort of thing.”  “Encumbered by a rural mindset, protective of party ways, we have fallen behind, drifted out of touch, hardened our categories, and lost our way.”
The good brother doesn’t think too well of plow preachers, old strategies and formats, old methods, rural mindsets, the King James Version, antiquated rule styles of worship, merely going through the motions, staid churches, antiquated musical idioms, assemblies that are cerebral and passive, yellow journals, in-house churchy vocabulary ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  I wonder  if brother Lynn has an OLD Testament hidden somewhere.
With such stultifying conditions existing in the conservative congregations and when all the outpourings of hell cannot prevail to turn members of a congregation into servile imps of Satan, then the strategy of Nut Twisters is to stir up enough discontent, chaos, strife, ill-will and division among the members sufficient to get the discontented to leave and start some sort of new church outfit.
    Brother Anderson has a unit on, “The Planting Challenge.”  He says, “…we must be planting some new, young churches that look, dress, and perform differently from their parents…”  “…it may need to update its wardrobe constantly.”  “The church of the future may wear a number of different faces.  And it expression will likely change from year to year.”  “Brother, would you help me plant a new church over yonder?  I must do this in order to follow God’s calling for me.”  “Enthusiasm for new church planting is on the rise.”  The new church will need to wear a bikini, be bare above the waistline and revel in back-alley culture in order to connect with the unsaved.
    Doesn’t it seem a bit senseless to go out and start a new church when one can be found with all the earmarks of that which brother Anderson is advocating?  The Christian Church, the Community Church or some cult will conform to the Anderson strategies.
    After following along from page to page, the reader is left on piece of sage advice taken from the pen of brother Anderson.  If anyone is ever tempted to write a book, please, “DON’T TRY TO COPY THE STRATEGIES OF OTHERS.”

Back to the Wayne Coats Library