|
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
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.(Prologue) 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
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.Introduction
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 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
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.Chapter 3 Seeing Visions And Dreaming Dreams “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
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.Chapter 4 Is It Heart Language Or Belly Culture “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 beg49 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 all50 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
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.6. “We Must Change In Order To Worship God-More Authentically-In The Heart Language Of Our Day." 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
User Friendly Means The Old Grey Mare Ain’t What She Used To BeChapter 6 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
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.Chapter 7 Brainwash The Brothers And Shakedown The Sisters 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 nothin |