The Stones are Crying Out

[Nicodema]

Don't think I'll be in Marion, Iowa anytime soon, unfortunately.

I like the dialogue idea. This is similar to what happened at the last Weds. night prayer meeting where the pastor opened it up for Q&A. It was one of the best sessions ever -- though he is still a bit control-heavy -- there's a fine line between needing to steer while facilitating versus needing to control and I think he's still learning it -- but because the stuff he put out on the table was sufficiently deep I can overlook that.

[Guest]

Hello G4J

I certainly agree with you on that note. it is possible to see some Christian lessons in some "non-religious" movies. To me tho; we can draw a line when it comes to certain types of movies. Sometimes; people can say "jesus" quite a few times; yet still use His name in vain.

[Nicodema]

G4J, I have "heard" God speak through the most unthinkable places. Psalm 139 is definitely proven factual, there is nowhere we may go and flee from His Spirit. I've "heard" God speak in the depths of hell and in the place of ultimate open rebellion against Him. Not that I would recommend journeying to some of these 'places' to hear Him when there are far clearer and purer channels, just that He has not left Himself without witness even in the darkest places of human experience and the human heart.

Even the blackest of lies must take truth for its kernel. "Visit the interior of the earth, find and rectify the hidden stone therein." Hmmm. There's an example right there ...

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

No matter what kind of "program" or "method" we use to "move people to stage five;" we are still not going to have "success" in reaching the alleged 96% we are not reaching, just because we are stuck on the program.

---

Actually, you are stuck on the "program" paradigm. There are other ways of looking at things.

You may also be mistaking the "Friendship evangelism" a program promoted by AdventSource for what we do.

Quote:

---

I would likely have a really hard time going to your church.

---

Yes, probably. For reasonsI'll address that later.

Quote:

---

If I were to summarize in my own words what I hear you saying here; I would say this: "Relational Evangelism" is where it's at, and it is the key to church growth, and in "leading" people to Christ; which our church is doing."

---

Now we're getting somewhere. By mirroring back, in your own words, it becomes clear where the misunderstanding lies.

Rather than trying more exposition, let me ask you a question, the same question we ask over and over again.

What does salvation mean?

These days we commonly hear that it is "a saving relationship to Christ." Is that correct?

If not, what is it?

---

Hello Ed

Now, you have turned it around to where I am stuck on the program paradigm; which is fine. But I will be looking for your explanation of "other ways of looking at things," in your next reply.

You also stated that you would explain just why I would have a hard time going to your church; yet you have stated in another reply that I did not really know what your relational model was because you had not yet described it. How then do you know so well exactly why I would or would not do something like this, when I have not yet described my reasons; except for a one sentence comment?

I sense here that you have put myself, and others you see as being like me into a little box which only you can open correctly. This seems to be against the grain of what you say you don't do at your church. My point being that if we want to say how "salvation" is "a saving relationship" with Jesus; the working definition of "saving" in this context does differ from one person/group to the next. Therefore; as I wondered aloud in the last post; shouldn't we consider other/additional means beyond this type of relationship model evangelism?

As you say; my question may depend upon what your definition of "the relationship model" is so I will wait to hear from you on that. But, my concern is still that you have built up a little model to work from, which cannot, and does not work for many. And to me it is clear how you are trying to align me into your model. Which may not be wrong in some cases; but this topic started off because I had made some remarks opposing the type of movies you use to "reach people." How do your written core values for your Church tell you to respond to people like me? Can you post a copy of those core values for us? I think that it may be a good addition to this topic.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

"other ways of looking at things,"

---

Fair enough.

We can view it, as I indicated earlier, as a "shared journey." Not a guided tour, where one leads and the other follows, but a shared journey.

Or a growth process. We know how children grow in general. but each one grows differently when it comes to specifics.

Trees all have some things in common, whether a Dogwood or an Apple or a Bunya Pine or a Redwood. But they grow at different rates and end up as very different trees. And since every human is his or her own kind of tree, the timing and rates are predictable. But the stages dont' change.

Although stages are predictable, they occur at different times and at different rates, and they cannot be forced without a incurring a compensatory deficit.

Relationship is yet another way of looking at it. The general path can be anticipated, but the specifics are unique and arbitrary.

Now, human beings are manipulative by nature and habit. There's no way to prevent people from manipulating. However, we can educate people. Accountability also helps.

So we spend a great deal of time examining both healthy relationships and understanding how manipulation creeps into them.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

How then do you know so well exactly why I would or would not do something like this

---

First of all, I said, "probably." The biggest single reason is that you make categorical statements like "Narnia is not Christian."

Most of my members would just smile and shrug. Well, "the Simpson's" definitely aren't Christian. In March, our services will begin with a video clip adapted from the Simpsons.

That probably sounds at least strange to you.

We might well have several segments that would not fit into the normal categories.

Our dialogue might be about "Toxic Lonelines" or "Dealing with Grief," "Mother-Child Bonding" or "Boundaries."

There are even more challenging things that take place. Your posts indicate you just don't get a lot of things that we do. This is not a condemnation or a criticism. But many of the concepts and methods that our target audience grasps immediately, you dont at all.

[Nicodema]

My boyfriend (who is not a Christian) and I have been watching "Joan of Arcadia" on DVD. Tonight we were discussing ideas for video games. He was talking about one he'd had and I was telling him about one I'd had about "time-of-trouble" type stuff. He said something really interesting that I think deserves some attention in the context of this discussion. He said the end of the world stuff was "too operatic" and "didn't reach" him. He said things like Joan of Arcadia "reached" him. That's the first time I can recall him ever even using a term like that to describe his response to something, so I thought it was well worth noting.

(For those not familiar with "Joan of Arcadia", it was a series that ran on CBS for two seasons before being cancelled. It centers on a teenage girl whose life is very average teenage girl stuff in every way you can imagine, except God keeps popping up (through various & diverse human forms) to give her "errands" to do that lead to interesting effects in her own life and other people's lives for personal growth, inner healing, learning life lessons, etc. We don't have cable so we've only been able to view season 1 on DVD; season 2 has not yet been released.)

I bring this up because I think when a non-believer speaks frankly and freely about something "reaching" them, we need to LISTEN and PAY ATTENTION.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I bring this up because I think when a non-believer speaks frankly and freely about something "reaching" them, we need to LISTEN and PAY ATTENTION.

---

Amen and Amen!

Joan of Arcadia was only one of several such series. CBS had the long-running series about Angels (which name escapes me right now). "Early Edition" was a similar series, where a young man got the day's newspaper 12 hours early (in the morning), so he could intervene and save lives, for example.

"Bruce Almighty" which will probably scandalize most who read this, makes powerful statements about the true nature of Christianity. It was successful enough that a sequel is in the works. "Raising Helen" features a self-proclaimed "sexy man of God" character.

Regardless of the merits of these productions, if we pay attention they tell us important things.

For example, contemporary secular people are experience oriented rather than logic oriented. Talk to them about "the Truth" and they tune you out. Get involved in practical goodness (our "kindness ministries" are an example), and they perk up. They're very open to spirituality, but bored to tears by doctrine.

One particularly interesting point is that they automatically reject an eternally burning hell. This extends across the board.

I once gave a dialogue at our church plant, where half the congregation were other than Adventists. They had been raised in various evangelical traditions, all of which taught eternal hellfire. But when I said that God would put an end to sin, and all who cling to it, rather than perpetuate it forever, these young people cheered!

Anyway, one of the most important things in regard to the popular culture's forays into spirituality, is that they tell us what people are interested in, what they're thinking about, what they're open to.

The stones are crying out. If we have the wit to listen, we can learn a lot!

[Guest]

Hello Nicodemia

I really enjoyed reading what you just wrote above; it is real; and very believable. I actually agree with your friend that some "evangelism" doesn't reach too many too well. When I went door to door selling Bible Books and children's books, the best ways to reach children and adults of some nationalities that could not speak English too well was not really through "the Bible" per say; but through the stories, and pictures in the "children's" books.

In fact; I had one lady buy the entire Bible Story book set just so she could learn the English Language better. I had another person buy a set of tapes, an audio version of an even simpler set of kid's books just so they could learn to speak English better.

I do agree, we need to "listen when the stones cry out." Earlier today, I had a conversation with someone who also knows a person I know that has/had cancer. This person is not an Adventist; they are not really committed to "Christianity" (atleast not to some); but we had been waiting for a few weeks now to see what the doctor wanted to do re the cancer treatment of this individual. When she told me that this person had called with the news that the cancer had just up and disappeared; and how everyone was so amazed; I just about fell off my chair.

You see, I had prayed quite a bit about this situation, and so this was very meaningful to me that it had turned out this way!! Now, I didn't know if I should mention this prayer to the person I was talking with; but it happened that they just asked me:

Quote:

---

"How in **&&^^%$# do you think something like this would ever happen? I mean; you are a medical person; how can cancer like this just disappear like that, when they have done absolutely nothing to treat it?"

---

I just chuckled; and said;

Quote:

---

"well, you do know that I am not only "medical;" but I am also a bit "religious?" I think I know just how that happened."

---

Now, keep in mind that that's all I said about religion; up to this point; and then she replied to me:

Quote:

---

"You know, you are right. Prayer is **&&^^%$ awesome! Man; I have been going through ____ and _____ and that's all I have had. Ya! prayer is **&&^^%$ awesesome...isn't it?? It's what is pulling me through!

---

Did I choose to set this person straight on how it's not very "Biblical" to use such adjectives to describe prayer? All I said was "yes, it is." And this did open the way to some more sharing and talking that I never thought would happen there. So yes; the ministry of listening is not important; it is essential. But then, "listening" is not a "program." We are human beings; not human doings. But thanks for sharing this testimony with us. It speaks volumes.

This next part is more directed to Ed:

I also have some thoughts regarding limits and boundaries which I would like to respectfully submit for more discussion/study. I do have different ideas about it than some "contemporaries." I will start by quoting something that Ed wrote a few years ago:

Quote:

---

Adventist Review, 2004 Issue - article called

"Dead Languages."

Quote:

---

"As we treat unsavory characters in our family tree, we conveniently forget the submerged pagan origins of the English language. Disturbing as that thought may be, there are no alternatives. If the Word is to be understandable, it must use the living language as people speak it, replete with pagan references."

- by Ed Dickerson

---

Dear Ed

This brief quote above,from an article you wrote in the Review several years ago,plus your comments here in this thread, show how you have developed an a priori filter through which you run your evangelism theology, and any opposers to same. (IMHO)Over the years; You have actually developed a whole system to "explain" why it is OK to use Pagan references in various evangelism efforts.

In this topic, we started by talking about Narnia; and somewhere above; you did mention that when I made reference to how people in countries where our Church is most growing, they use the Bible, (and not pagan/spiritualistic references to understand and to promote the gospel); and you said that my reference to this was "breath-takingly irrelevant" as "they do not speak English."

This reasoning you have used puzzles me because we also do not speak their language; yet we "translate" our "message" for them; and on the one hand you say that Narnia is Christian; yet, it uses Pagan references, which involve the types of Paganisms, beasts, and fantasies that are more in those very countries I was referring to. We should, then, by your reasoning, atleast use pagan references that are more common to our culture. You are on record as stating that it is a good idea to use things common to each culture group we are trying to reach.

As a related aside; the use of the vulgar Simpsons cartoons to "reach" people are yet another whole group of questions that could be asked. I would like to hear from you on just how your Church is "adapting" this cartoon for "reaching people." (I know many non-Christians that would never permit their kids to watch this cartoon).

But, in the above article I quoted from, (found right now at http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1510/story2.html ) You stated, in support of using pagan references in Evangelism, the following:

Quote:

---

"I am not always comfortable with some forms of music in church. But the Bible challenges the notion that my comfort should be a primary concern. Far from encouraging our comfort, in Revelation 3:15-17, the Faithful and True Witness tells Laodicea that our preoccupation with our own comfort is our problem!"

---

Now, I agree, some of what you say here may be true re how to express ourselves in a way/s that "contemporary" people would understand. I do that myself. But I have to sharply disagree in your thinking that the message of John the Revelator to the "Laodiceans" is one of "comfort", vs. "discomfort;" although, that is a component of this message. And I feel compelled to disagree that this message to Laodicea would support, in some way our use of pagan symbolism, in such forms as Narnia. I can explain this more another time if needed. I am almost out of time tonight.

But, my question is really simple for now. I would be interested in the next couple of posts here to explore with you; another, equally important concern as you have stated that "our comfort;" is with God; and it is found in texts such as: Ez.22:26: "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane,"

Can you comment, with some scripture references, just how/where we should make this "difference" when it comes to using pagan symbolism to "reach" people "for Jesus? Especially as it pertains to the religious education of children. But, also, The strong emotions evoked in some adults who see this movie; do these reactions really reflect some kind of religious awakening/revival; or are there other possibilities?

I would like to hear from you of specific ways that Narnia has been, is, or will be used by the Seventh-day Adventist Church; are there any "testimonies" or other verifiable documentations of how we now, or will, make this "difference" spoken of by Ezekiel, in our use of Narnia, or other such pagan symbolisms to "reach" people?

Or, maybe we need to just ignore what this prophet said; because he doesn't really speak "contemporary" language? I mean, really; no matter how it is translated; will some parts of the Bible ever truly meet the "contemporary" mind-set?

Ed, you stated that Narnia was "Christ-centered." Therefore, as an extension of that thought; I would like to see you explain just where we draw the lines there. How would you describe, (with Biblical references), the "difference" between something being "Christ-like," and not Christ-like? (in our "contemporary" society, of course). And, within a similar context; there are spirit of prophecy writings which seem to contraindicate the use of such materials as Narnia:

Quote:

---

"8T.308.003

Myths and Fairy Tales

In the education of children and youth, fairy tales, myths, and fictitious stories are now given a large place. Books of this character are used in the schools, and they are to be found in many homes. How can Christian parents permit their children to use books so filled with falsehood?

When the children ask the meaning of stories so contrary to the teaching of their parents, the answer is that the stories are not true; but this does not do away with the evil results of their use.

The ideas presented in these books mislead the children. They impart false views of life and beget and

foster a desire for the unreal.

8T.309.001

The widespread use of such books at this time is one of the cunning devices of Satan. He is seeking to divert the minds of old and young from the great work of preparation for the things that are coming upon the earth. He means that our children and youth shall be swept away by the soul-destroying deceptions with which he is flooding the world. Therefore he seeks to

divert their minds from the word of God,

and thus prevent them from gaining a knowledge of those truths that would be their safeguard."

---

Ed, how would you reconcile this and other such comments with what you are advocating here? Would Narnia or Bart Simpson fall into these categories of undesirable materials as described here in 8T? Or, do we need to just resolve ourselves to the allegations (not by you), that Ellen G White is not "contemporary" so this can be taken "with a grain of salt?"

One of my points re the evangelism/witnessing thing is not even that we are to "give the real message;" because we are not able to even do this, even if we want to. The only way this can be successfully done is if we are "the message;" only then can the "sabbath be proclaimed more fully;" (or any other message), and that "more fully" aspect is only possible through the indwelling and out-working of The Holy Spirit.

Any evangelism that does not encompass and embrace the ministry and office of The Holy Spirit is false-hood, no matter how many times they say "Jesus;" Do such ones, speak the Lord's name in vain; when they have the unrestraint to pronounce Narnia as "Christ-centered;" and then denounce anyone who disagrees with that? Narnia is just another polished religious machine. All "machines" wear out, as we can see from the chapter in Great Controvery called : "False Religious Revival." I can email anyone a copy of this chapter if anyone is interested.

I can certainly understand what Nicodemia has said about the movie series she and her friend were connecting on; but you are right Ed; I absolutely do not see the same parallels with things like Narnia, or Bart Simpson.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

(IMHO)Over the years; You have actually developed a whole system to "explain" why it is OK to use Pagan references in various evangelism efforts

---

No. You miss the point. I don't say it's OK. I say it's unavoidable. Every language (except the language of Eden) was used for false worship and in service of false gods before God broke in and brought His truth to them. Thus, the language was filled with references, some of the overt, others less so, to pagan gods.

Whatever language we use will thus be replete with pagan references, many of them taken for granted to the point that they are opaque to the native speakers.

The Bible itself uses pagan references to communicate God's truths.

Quote:

---

they use the Bible, (and not pagan/spiritualistic references to understand and to promote the gospel); and you said that my reference to this was "breath-takingly irrelevant" as "they do not speak English."

---

I knew a man who was an SDA missionary to the native peoples of Alaska (We used to call them Eskimos).

When they translated the Bible into the local language, they had to find a substitute for "Lamb of God," since the indigenous peoples knew nothing of sheep. They chose the phrase for "baby seal." Seal is not even clean!

When they described Heaven, they spoke of it as a place where the tables were full of fish.

Eric B. Hare put a rabbit on the medicines he distributed in Burma, because the Karen people believed the rabbit brought health.

As a point of interest, out of all the responses I got for "Dead Languages," and there were many (130+), every single response from a missionary was positive. The negatives came from NA and one or two from Europe.

Quote:

---

But I have to sharply disagree in your thinking that the message of John the Revelator to the "Laodiceans" is one of "comfort", vs. "discomfort;" although, that is a component of this message. And I feel compelled to disagree that this message to Laodicea would support, in some way our use of pagan symbolism, in such forms as Narnia.

---

The logical errors here are multitude.

1.The Chronicles of Narnia were never mentioned nor alluded to in the article. We might debate whether they serve as a "living language" to reach contemporary people, but that was outside the scope of the article.

2. I was using that "component" of the text in Revelation only to make the limited point that our comfort can be a problem.

3. Once again, I was not using Revelation to say anything about the uses of pagan symbolism, only that Laodicea's problem is its comfort. Please stop generalizing every detail. It's not only logically false, but it wastes a great deal of energy.

So that entire statement about Revelation is simply irrelevant.

Quote:

---

you say that Narnia is Christian; yet, it uses Pagan references, which involve the types of Paganisms, beasts, and fantasies

---

As does the Bible itself. It uses the Canaanite creation myth, and, instead of having Baal split the sea-serpent and create the world, it has Jehovah perform that same task.

Quote:

---

Job 26: 12 By his power he churned up the sea;

by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.

13 By his breath the skies became fair;

his hand pierced the gliding serpent.

---

Psalm 74 specifically describes God as creating the world as the Baal myth had Baal do it.

Isaiah predicts that Jehovah Yahweh will do it again,

Quote:

---

Isaiah 27:1 In that day,

the LORD will punish with his sword,

his fierce, great and powerful sword,

Leviathan the gliding serpent,

Leviathan the coiling serpent;

he will slay the monster of the sea.

---

this is a common Biblical device, explaining future deliverance in terms of past actions.

Psalm 24 was lifted essentially verbatim from the Ugaritic, with one or two conspicuous and oddly discordant changes.

Until you understand this point, going forward will be futile.

I will, however, deal with this sarcastic point.

Quote:

---

Or, maybe we need to just ignore what this prophet said; because he doesn't really speak "contemporary" language?

---

No. But not all Scriptures are normative for all situations. First we have to look at what it meant at the time, in context. Then we have to see if the current context is essentially the same. Your application has made several assumptions.

[Guest]

Hello Ed

I like the way you keep describing things you disagree with as "irrelevant." That is very convenient; but I do appreciate your time and efforts here in replying to me.

BTW; last I heard, Seals are not "pagan;" or "spiritualistic."

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I like the way you keep describing things you disagree with as "irrelevant." That is very convenient

---

You are mistaken.

1. When I disagree with something, I state the disagreement. When something is beside the point, does not add to the discussion, it is irrelevant. You admitted that comfort was "a component," and then proceeded to argue against a point I never asserted. That's irrelevant.

(adj) irrelevant (having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue)

2. Frankly, it is quite inconvenient to have to keep sweeping inert verbiage aside in order to make progress.

Quote:

---

BTW; last I heard, Seals are not "pagan;" or "spiritualistic."

---

You keep ignoring evidence you don't like, such as the direct scriptural evidence of the Biblical use of pagan materials.

You also ignored the Eric B. hare example, which did indeed include both pagan and spiritualistic influences.

I used the seal as one of a range of examples. And the fact that seal is not clean could in fact pose theological difficulties. I used three examples. Two directly disprove your statement, so you focus on the third.

Interesting technique. But fatiguing.

I apologize if this seems grumpy. But if seems to me you're being obstructionist.

[Aliensanctuary]

A younger SDA couple befriended me back when I was about 27 y/o. An excellent musician, he looked me up when he heard I owned a Moog synthesizer.

They introduced me to the Chronicles of Narnia books, which had such an impact on me that I stopped drinking vodka and started believing in God again. Although I can't blame anyone but myself, I couldn't find God at the huge SDA church in Keene, TX. In Narnia I found a different kind of God, a more real God, in the huge lion, Aslan. I loved Aslan and wished I could meet him so he could fix me.

Years later, my wife and I read these books, sometimes over and over, to our 4 daughters. Others may complain about the witches, but these books were very important to me. Maybe, if it weren't for Aslan and Narnia, I wouldn't be here.

The Bible gives us tantalizing clues about what's in the Kingdom of the Stars. Unfortunately, mainline Christianity today propagates myths and superstitions, much like the mainline religion Jesus had to counteract.

Sure, we picture Jesus riding on a cloud upon his return to Earth. What really interests me, though, is what's hidden behind the clouds. Without any imagination, this world and Christianity would be hoplessly dull. We'd in fact, all be robots.

[there buster]

Fantastic!!

[Aliensanctuary]

I'm thinking that the Chronicles of Narnia, which are an allegory, really, are kind of like an extended parable in which good ultimately triumphs over evil. While good upholds honor, evil has none.

Jesus caught people's attention with his short but brilliant parables. That's what it took to get my attention, an allegory/parable, not all the church culture stuff.

................

Another matter...

We should be really careful not to throw mud at each other, but deal with conflicts like Jesus did. When we throw mud, first, we're looking down, not up, and second, after we throw a nice big ball of gooey mud at someone we don't agree with or like, our hands are covered with the same nasty mud, and we're no better off than our target.

We have to keep looking up at the stars, for that's where help is coming from. There's no good time for mudslinging or nitpicking, because, there will be no mud fights or nitpicking in God's Kingdom. True Christians will only say and do good things to others, encouraging them to uphold the basic principles of God's Kingdom. Endless arguments convince no one, drive away seekers of truth, and align us with the forces of evil.

We're put here on Earth to be tested, to see if we make the right choices that will allow us into the Kingdom. If we're doing and saying things here that are not allowed in the next life, what will happen to us? If we say "I love Jesus" but repeatedly harm others with our words or actions, we may be in for an extremely unpleasant surprise, finding ourselves standing on a ruined Earth, looking up at the New Jerusalem hovering out in space, slowly descending to the surface.

Anyway, we need to tap our creativity to enable us to make God's Everlasting Kingdom appealing to the sin-sick people out there looking for something to change their lives, something worth believing in. But we can do nothing unless we Love God First, then Love Others As Much As We Love Ourselves.

[Michelle]

Aliensanctuary--excellent points. Mudslinging and nitpicking are ugly, and one reason I have mostly given up on C/A. So much fun for the people involved, but really nasty to look at!

There have been some interesting thoughts in this thread, if one can clean off enough of the debris to see them, which is why I've continued to read it, but it looks as though it's denegerating into what too many threads do here. *sigh*

M

[Guest]

hey Ed

Sorry I am making you so "tired." I guess maybe this discussion is not a good idea; although, I wish I could find someone to just patiently study this stuff out with me. I don't think it's so wrong to disagree; but maybe sometimes we get too carried away with our points. It's hard to know where to draw the line when it's not in person. Some see it all as "mudslinging;" yet others do not get that impression at all. But for the sake of those who are seeing this as "mudslinging;" I am willing to bow out...Take care; and take prayer. God needs our energies in a more positive direction.

[there buster]

I have no problem with disagreement. Actually, in my classes, I thrive on it. But there is a difference beween disagreeing over the central point, and simply throwing up roadblocks at every opportunity.

I think if you review this discussion. you'll find a pattern. I started it with some statements about a currnet movie and about statistics concerning church outreach.

You take it personally and either respond with

a) Says who?

You're wrong

or c) Prove it.

I provide more information, offer verification, and we never hear any more about that point.

You shift the argument to a different point, often quite peripheral.

For example, I began with a whole range of things, of which the Narnia movie was an example. You invented the idea of "Narnia evangelism," demanding proof that this current movie has won people. Even though it came out at Christmas time, after repeated demands, I provide you with an example of someone who was personally quite moved by this very film.

Others have chimed in with Narnia (in this case the books) helped them.

I hear no more from you about that.

You wanted other ways of looking at things. I gave you a couple.

I hear no more from you abou that.

You have declared Narnia is not Christian, because "it uses Pagan references, which involve the types of Paganisms, beasts, and fantasies."

I gave you specific references that demonstrate that Scripture does exactly the same thing.

I hear no more from you on about that.

I am still waiting for you to respond to :

• The examples of people moved by the Chronicles of Narnia
• the other paradigms or metaphors for the process of discipling
• Scriptural usage of "Paganisms, beasts, and fantasies."

You demanded evidence, now what?

Do you simply dismiss it, because I provided it? That's your privilege, but why keep asking me for more if you think I'm fabricating all this?

You keep shifting the debated, demanding different evidence. when it's provided, you shift again, as though nothing had been established, nothing accomplished. That's the source of my fatigue.

I'm tiring of responding to an ever-changing, amorphous cloud of negativity.

Please take note. I have nowhere speculated about your motives, your character, or your sincerity. I have spoken only to your actions.

[Aliensanctuary]

Michelle, you’re a dear.

The Pharisees of Jesus' day, we read, loved to argue in the synagogues. That's why Jesus' teachings were like the fresh air of a spring breeze blowing away the stale air of the confusion of unresolved conflict. When Jesus spoke, he brought peace and hope to his listeners, and he usually went out of his way to avoid conflict.

Some of us may like to pick apart or demand proof of every statement of someone else. That might be interesting to some, but arguing minutiae is not so interesting to others, especially to those mainly looking for peace and friendship. Maybe it would be better to argue details, and trade what seems to be insults, in private, lest we turn away any seekers of friendship and peace. In the Kingdom of God are Peace and Harmony. Those who enjoy arguing about the small stuff may not like it there. There will probably be someone or something there they won’t agree with.

Ultimately, all of our movies and books will turn into ash when everything on Earth is destroyed. Movies and books and everything else we possess are nothing. The only thing that will count is this: Did we do what God wanted us to do? Did we love him with all of our heart, and, did we love others enough feed and clothe and visit them in prison or in sickness, even to die for them, if necessary? That’s the only key to the Kingdom of the Stars. Everything else is worthless and will be given to the flames.

[Aliensanctuary]

Calgary Guy,

I appreciated your PM. I really don't have a problem with listening to your ideas. Maybe I overreacted, but I get very uncomfortable reading what seems to be "fighting" between members.

Jesus didn't need movies or charades or books or gimmicks to interest people in the Kingdom. If he showed up today, he still wouldn't. He did have the advantage of reading people's minds to see what they really needed. We can study people to find out what they need to fill the empty place in their lives, too. Maybe a book or movie or skit might influence a person to join God's Kingdom, maybe they will only join a church and not become a member of the True Kingdom.

Perhaps someday we may discover how useless church attendance/membership is when correlated to actually receiving eternal life. Church buildings are nothing. Church membership is nothing. Church bureaucracy is nothing. What really counts is, what did we, as individuals, do for other people? We may think we're "worshiping" God by going to the stand-up, sit-down, clap-your-hands church services, but we can actually only "worship", or honor, God in our hearts. The external act of attending church is nothing.

Jesus didn't run off to a church to pray in the early hours of the morning. He found a place of solitude in nature so he could think clearly, free from any man-made distractions. That's how we should worship God, quietly, in Spirit (we have to ask) and in Truth (we have to study).

Church membership may interest relatively only a few Seekers of Truth in the world. Many, many more would be interested in the Kingdom of the Heavens (Stars) if they could only get a glimpse of it. That's our real mission, to show people what wonders the Kingdom of the Stars has for them. All they have to do is believe in, love, and follow (obey) Jesus/God. They don't have to join the SDA church, so full of spider webs and bones, to become a member of the Everlasting Kingdom.

[Michelle]

Calgary Guy,

I also appreciated your PM. As I told you, I thought there were, at one point in this thread, some worthwhile thoughts being expressed and discussed, but then the nits started being picked about words, phrases, grammar, and I lost attention.

Maybe there will be a place where your ideas CAN be expressed and explored without the degeneration that ALWAYS happens here on C/A (I don't think that is an overstatement or exaggeration). Where? When? I don't know. But it's too bad that it can't happen here.

M

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

(IMHO)Over the years; You have actually developed a whole system to "explain" why it is OK to use Pagan references in various evangelism efforts

---

No. You miss the point. I don't say it's OK. I say it's unavoidable. Every language (except the language of Eden) was used for false worship and in service of false gods before God broke in and brought His truth to them. Thus, the language was filled with references, some of the overt, others less so, to pagan gods.

Whatever language we use will thus be replete with pagan references, many of them taken for granted to the point that they are opaque to the native speakers.

---

Hello Ed & Others

I have not really meant to ignore anything posted here by anyone; I am just like anyone else - sometimes I pass through a forum rather quickly, as I am in a hurry...I post whatever comes to mind as most important. But I will be back here soon to continue. Tonight, I am taking my lads out to a wood-burning lesson. Another way to "evangelise!!!" Kids love it when you just spend time with them. Hmmmm...I wonder. Are kids considered "contemporary?"

[Guest]

Ed; I got an email notification saying that you had replied but I don't see that post anywhere now. I presume you have erased it?? I just wanted to say that no one is asking you to "leave this thread alone;" and that I believe we can still discuss this topic. The choice of course will have to be your's; but I for one am not asking you to do this.

[there buster]

I started this thread to celebrate that God was using secular means to reach people we're ignoring. I have witnessed that. It seemed likely that some people might be encouraged by that, and even want to understand how that's happening.

Instead, I've encountered skepticism, cynicism, "mudslinging and nitpicking," and obstructionism. I've tried to respond to questions, thinking people really wanted to understand.

Put me down as a slow learner, but I finally got it.

So, you go on doing what you've been doing, happy in the knowledge that I'm mistaken.

I'll continue to do what I believe the Lord has called me to do. I will expend every effort to see to it that there's a church my children and grandchildren gladly attend. The bleeding has to stop somewhere.

[Guest]

Hello Ed

I agree, the bleeding has to stop somewhere. I suppose one could also consider: Does it actually stop at a "contemporary church?"

Sorry for all my "obstructionism." I don't think I really mentioned something that may help. The reason I even started posting here, was simply because some of the things you were saying go against the grain of what I thought were basic principles for the religious education of children. I am not totally inexperienced in this area; as during my nursing career; I did specialize in pediatrics, meaning up to age 18; and a bit beyond at times...but if I have used any innappropriate means by which to question certain concepts that you have been trying to paint for people here; then I apologize. In my last post, I mentioned that inspite of what has already taken place here; if we want to, we could still discuss this general topic of what is the best way to "evangelize" "contemporary people;" and if we do carry on here with our discussion; there should be room to disagree without either of us trying to characterize the other for what they believe. This only leads to hard feelings.

Because of the way children learn, perceive; etc., as compared to the adult; it has long been my conclusion that we should be careful in how we teach them moral values. There are certain potential pitfalls in doing business there; and it can be of real benefit to study these more.

The most common problem that I know of in all of our churches; including "contemporary" ones, is that of trying to keep people in them. They tend to leave, out the backdoor, almost as fast as people are coming in the front door. Most "contemporary" churches do get large numbers; but it's not all roses there either. Would you agree that it can be of great benefit to study the reasons why?

Ed, because you have a masters in religious education; that could be very valuable here; and I am thinking that maybe we could pool our ideas, opinions, and experiences here to try and answer some of the common objections regarding use of pagan symbolisms in evangelism, and in teaching moral values. I am actually quite interested in this subject; and just how it pertains to young people. (I have some in my own house too!!)...

Let us just witness here to our "unity in diversity;" and continue our topic. If you are in agreement with this, in principle; please say yea; or nea, and I will be glad to post a short one or two paragraph summary of points I am interested in continuing to explore here with you or other forum participants who may be interested.