Wednesday, April 30, 2008

This Is Simply Incredible...

Monday, April 28, 2008

Six Years

Last night, my wife and I celebrated our 6^th wedding anniversary. After such a hectic week, it was nice to attend church in the morning, recharge the social batteries with friends and family for lunch, and then spend the evening with my wife at Outback and then see a movie. We reflected a lot over the past year. This time last year, neither one of us had a job and moving in with the in-laws was our only real option. After a year of staying with them, we are scheduled to sign a lease on a new apartment in Navarre tonight. We were disappointed last week when our original apartment option fell through but this one looks like it really is all done with the exception of the ink being on the lease and, of course, we are very excited, but trying not to get our hopes up until everything is official…

Just heard from the wife and the electric bill is in our name and the gas bill is in the process (as soon as they receive a copy of my wife’s photo ID and Social Security card; thank goodness she is able to do this during her work hours). Is this thing really going to happen? It feels so surreal…

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Thoughts On Iraq

In March 2003, when the US was pushing its agenda of invading Iraq, I supported the war. I trusted our President and our Congress that the intelligence that we received concerning the infamous weapons of mass destruction was credible. In my mind and in the minds of many other Americans, if Iraq obtained weapons of mass destruction, they would pose a considerable threat to the US and its allies.

Weeks later, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and proclaimed that major operations in Iraq were over and that the US had been victorious. The fact that weapons of mass destruction were not yet found seemed to be of no concern to Bush or his administration. Weeks then turned into years and as of today, April 22, 2008, these weapons of mass destruction still have not been found and heads have not rolled because of this huge foreign-policy blunder. [Also note: Osama bin Laden is still on the loose somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Could it be that the War in Iraq has distracted us from the legitimate war in Afghanistan?]

Democrats have capitalized on this and demanded that the war come to an end. Republicans have not been so forthcoming, mainly, I believe, because they do not want egg on their face, especially with a Presidential election coming up very soon. In my humble opinion, what has happened is that the Democratic base has been strengthened and the Republicans are looking like fools.

Enter John McCain: a tough-talking war-mongering Republican who, in my humble opinion, is a Democratic wolf in sheep’s clothing. What exactly makes this guy a Republican? That question is assuming that “Republican” still means “conservative” which apparently, it does not. His record on campaign finance reform and immigration is far from conservative, but since he is the Iraq War’s golden boy, a tough-talking war-mongering savior of the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of our nation (not my thought: that came from Newsweek magazine, but I totally agree), he apparently is good enough for most Republicans.

But not this one. The biggest threat to our country right now is not Islamic Fascism. It is our foreign policy. We have focused way too much on it to the neglect of our domestic policy. Our country is in, if not on the verge of, a recession, possibly a depression. Meanwhile, our money is being funneled to a war that the American people have made very clear that they do not want (mainly because I think that they do not understand it; if the war was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction like we were told and we did not find them, then why are we still there?) and that money could clearly go for much more useful things like securing our borders.

Here’s the thing: After World War 2, we got scared. How did Hitler achieve what he did and why did it take so much to stop him? Can it happen again? Our fears were confirmed by fighting Red Communism in the Korean Conflict and during the Cuban Missile Crisis followed shortly by the Vietnam War. The Soviet Union was the big threat and we had to diffuse the other bully on the block. Fast forward to the late 80’s and early 90’s when the Soviet Union broke up. The Big Red Beast was defeated, but the US never shifted its focus (Maybe President Clinton was on to something by reducing our military?). We entered another war for purely economic reasons in 1991 which resulted in U.N. Resolutions (Don’t even get me started on that) that lead us indirectly to this current war. We have screwed up our foreign policy so much that other countries are, legitimately and illegitimately, angry at the United States.

Let me make this very clear: I no longer support the War in Iraq. Our current administration trumpets the evils of Islamic terrorism and makes it sound like we are always on the brink of another terrorist attack. The forced the Patriot Act down our throats which reduces us to a surveillance state and we stand by and smile, clinging to our American flags, while our constitutional rights are taken away. Yes, there still is a thing called the Constitution and it is not a bendable document. It guarantees us certain rights and gives us certain responsibilities. We may have unjustly used it to kill innocent unborn children and start illegal wars, but it says what it says whether we choose to believe it or not. Fear cannot dictate to us our rights.

We must turn the focus from over there to over here. The very first step is to bring our troops home from this stupid, ridiculous, pointless war. The second step is to divert the money that we would have spent for the war to securing our borders. Once we stop or at least reduce the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, then we can turn our attention to the real work ahead of once again making this country great.

Bailing Out Stupid People

Ron Paul on Bailing Out Banks

by Col. George W.

April 14, 2008 03:35 PM EDT views: 281 | rating: 10/10 (9 votes) | comments: 15

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

<hr>

Bailing Out Banks

There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about the Federal Reserve and the actions it has taken over the past few months. Many media pundits have been bending over backwards to praise the Fed for supposedly restoring stability to the market. This interpretation of the Fed's actions couldn't be further from the truth.

The current market crisis began because of Federal Reserve monetary policy during the early 2000s in which the Fed lowered the interest rate to a below-market rate. The artificially low rates led to overinvestment in housing and other malinvestments. When the first indications of market trouble began back in August of 2007, instead of holding back and allowing bad decision-makers to suffer the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve took aggressive, inflationary action to ensure that large Wall Street firms would not lose money. It began by lowering the discount rates, the rates of interest charged to banks who borrow directly from the Fed, and lengthening the terms of such loans. This eliminated much of the stigma from discount window borrowing and enabled troubled banks to come to the Fed directly for funding, pay only a slightly higher interest rate but also secure these loans for a period longer than just overnight.

After the massive increase in discount window lending proved to be ineffective, the Fed became more and more creative with its funding arrangements. It has since created the Term Auction Facility (TAF), the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF). The upshot of all of these new programs is that through auctions of securities or through deposits of collateral, the Fed is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars of funding into the financial system in a misguided attempt to shore up the stability of the system.

The PDCF in particular is a departure from the established pattern of Fed intervention because it targets the primary dealers, the largest investment banks who purchase government securities directly from the New York Fed. These banks have never before been allowed to borrow from the Fed, but thanks to the Fed Board of Governors, these investment banks can now receive loans from the Fed in exchange for securities which will in all likelihood soon lose much of their value.

The net effect of all this new funding has been to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system and bail out banks whose poor decision making should have caused them to go out of business. Instead of being forced to learn their lesson, these poor-performing banks are being rewarded for their financial mismanagement, and the ultimate cost of this bailout will fall on the American taxpayers. Already this new money flowing into the system is spurring talk of the next speculative bubble, possibly this time in commodities.

Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable.

Not Just Our Sin, But Our Sorrow Too

Friday, April 11, 2008

CONSIDER MY AFFLICTION AND MY TROUBLE, AND FORGIVE ALL MY SINS.

Psalm 25:18 It is good for us when prayers about our sorrows are linked with pleas concerning our sins--when, being under God's hand, we do not focus exclusively on our pain, but remember our sins against God. It is also good to take both sorrow and sin to the same place. It was to God that David carried his sorrow: It was to God that David confessed his sin. Notice, then, we must take our sorrows to God. Even your little sorrows you may cast upon God, for He counts the hairs of your head; and your great sorrows you may commit to Him, for He holds the ocean in the hollow of His hand. Go to Him, whatever your present trouble may be, and you will find Him able and willing to relieve you. But we must take our sins to God too. We must carry them to the cross, that the blood may fall upon them, to purge away their guilt and to destroy their defiling power.
The special lesson of the text is this:--we are to go to the Lord with sorrows and with sins in the right spirit. Note that all David asks concerning his sorrow is, "Consider my affliction and my trouble"; but the next petition is vastly more explicit, definite, decided, plain--"Forgive all my sins." Many sufferers would have reversed it: "Remove my affliction and my pain, and consider my sins." But David does not; he cries, "Lord, when it comes to my affliction and my pain, I will not dictate to Your wisdom. Lord, look at them--I will leave them to You. I would like to have my pain removed, but do as You will. But as for my sins, Lord, I know what needs to happen--I must have them forgiven; I cannot endure to live under their curse for a moment." A Christian counts sorrow lighter in the scale than sin; he can bear to have troubles continue, but he cannot bear the burden of his transgressions.

Please note: Devotional material is taken from “Morning and Evening,” written by C.H. Spurgeon, revised and updated by Alistair Begg. Copyright (c) 2003, Good News Publishers and used by Truth for Life with written permission. Scripture quotations are taken from Holy Bible: English Standard Version, copyright (c) 2001, Good News Publishers.

Truth For Life's agreement with Good News Publishers prevents the ministry from allowing a printer-friendly version of the devotional material. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Why Stan Warford Is A Ron Paul Libertarian

Why I Am a Ron Paul Libertarian

by Stan Warford
by Stan Warford

window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;

DIGG THIS

I was born and raised a liberal Democrat. My grandmother, who lived through the Depression, thought that Franklin Roosevelt was the savior of the United States. My father, who was a farmer, explained to me why it was a good policy for the government to pay farmers to not grow crops. For years I thought that gun control laws were necessary to curb violent behavior. At one time I believed that minimum wage laws were compassionate. I used to defend our government in its foreign interventions, especially those based on humanitarian grounds.

But, during the past twelve years, I have rejected many political beliefs taught to me by my family and my schools. I now believe that our country is in serious trouble that only libertarian principles can alleviate.

Furthermore, these problems have a direct effect on your future.

When you graduate, you will look for a job. What if you cannot find one because the economy is in a recession or even a depression?

Your salary will be paid in dollars. What will those dollars be worth after the Federal Reserve decreases their value with its policy of inflation and Wall Street bailouts?

You will begin to save for your retirement. What if you pay into Social Security your whole life but receive no benefits at the end because the system is bankrupt?

And, heaven forbid, what if you must terminate your employment because our country reinstates the draft and sends you off to war as it did with my generation in the 60s?

The Non-aggression Principle

Libertarianism is based on this Non-aggression Principle: It should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided that he does not initiate violence or threaten violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

The Non-aggression Principle implies all the common prohibitions against theft, murder, rape, torture, and violence against other individuals except in cases of self-defense of one’s person or property.

But government itself is financed by the compulsory payment of taxes by its citizens. Taxes are not voluntary. If you disagree with the policies of your government you may not withhold your taxes because if you do the government will threaten you with the violence of law enforcement.

It therefore follows that the government that governs best is the government that governs least.

The libertarian philosophy advocates a small government in line with the US Constitution as envisioned by our founding fathers. It is growing in popularity but has a huge uphill battle to wage. Our government is in large part controlled by special interest groups and the leaders of an entrenched two-party system. The maintenance of this system is based on a series of myths that are perpetuated to justify an ever-expanding government that assumes more power year by year, the very antithesis of a government that governs least.

Here are some of those myths.

Myth Number One – That which is immoral should be illegal.

It is true that many actions that are immoral should be illegal – actions such as theft and murder. However, no action by any individual in the privacy of his own home that does not initiate violence against another should be illegal even if it is immoral. Nor should any action between two consenting adults that does not initiate violence against others be illegal even if it is immoral.

We are in the midst of a huge, expensive, failed war on drugs. The war itself produces more harm than the abuse of the illegal drugs. A recent study puts our incarceration rate at 1%, the highest per capita rate of any country in the world. It is estimated that about a half million of these are for nonviolent drug offenses. Alcohol prohibition was responsible for gangland violence in the streets, and drug prohibition is no different. Libertarians call for an end to the drug war.

Myth Number Two – Government regulation is necessary to save us from the failures of laissez faire capitalism.

The prime example of this myth is the belief that laissez faire capitalism caused the Great Depression and that government intervention in the economy ended it. The fact is, however, that the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, a full 16 years before the fateful stock market crash of 1929. The Fed presided over an expansion of the credit market, which produced the roaring 20’s, the largest economic bubble in history before its collapse.

In recent history, we have seen the dot com bubble and now the real estate mortgage bubble. Both of these bubbles are created by government intervention in the credit market through the Federal Reserve central bank. Libertarians call for an economic policy governed by the principles of the Austrian School of Economics, which includes a minimization of government intervention in the free market.

Myth Number Three – Government intervention in the affairs of foreign countries is necessary for the security of its own citizens.

Ever since the tragic events of September 11, our executive branch has justified its intervention in Iraq and the subsequent erosion of our civil liberties in order to secure our safety. It has even established a policy of preemptive war, whereby it claims the authority to invade another country because that country might aggress against us in the future. Imagine the chaos in the world if every country claimed that authority.

Our intervention in Iraq has made us less safe, not more, because of the unintended consequence called "blowback" by the CIA in its recently declassified report on our policy in Iran. The 9/11 Commission report also describes the blowback phenomenon. Our military intervention, apart from its devastating effects on Iraqi civilians, acts as recruiting tool for extremists. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Libertarians call for a foreign policy of nonintervention in general and an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in particular.

Myth Number Four – Non-interventionism is the same as isolationism.

Isolationists want to isolate the country from interaction with the rest of the world. To that end, they are for national economic self-sufficiency and protectionist tariffs. Isolationists use trade wars and economic sanctions as foreign policy tools to isolate other countries from the world economy.

Libertarian non-interventionists, on the other hand, support international trade, low tariffs, cultural exchange, and diplomatic contact. They view trade as so beneficial that they refuse to withhold it even from despotic states. A positive example is our continuing trade with Communist China, which serves to open that country to the liberal ideals of the west and is beneficial both to us and to them in spite of their tarnished record on human rights. A negative example is our continuing economic boycott of Cuba, a policy that has failed to remove its leader of a half century.

Myth Number Five – If the government does not solve a social problem, the social problem will not be solved.

This myth is used to justify government provision of social services such as health care, education, and retirement. The myth is based on the conflation of negative rights with positive rights.

Negative rights are rights of prohibition against other people from initiating violence against you. Negative rights are enshrined in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence that all people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Positive rights force other individuals to provide you with a service. Positive rights are claims that you have a right to a job with a living wage, a right to affordable health care, a right to an education, and a right to a comfortable retirement. Government uses the fiction of positive rights to expand its power in the provision of these services.

Libertarians object to the use of government to provide social services on two grounds, one ethical and one practical.

Because tax collection is not voluntary, people who receive social services from the government do so through a forced exchange of tax dollars. The receipt of such services thus violates the Non-aggression Principle and is unethical.

The practical objection is the observation that no government agency exercising monopoly power can provide a service with better quality or lower price than the free market can under the discipline of the profit motive. We would have better schools and better health care without government interference in these markets.

Libertarians call for a government whose sole function is limited to the Constitutional guarantee of the negative rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Myth Number Six – Libertarianism is idealistic and does not work in practice.

Libertarians are often accused of having a naïve faith in the free market, and having ideas about the way society ought to be governed that are not practical. As with most myths, the truth is precisely the opposite, as can be demonstrated by public choice theory. Public choice scholars analyze the structure of government from an economic and political perspective to explain why certain policies come into being.

Government programs are not effective because the incentive system does not reward bureaucrats for good service or punish them for bad service. The Los Angeles Unified School District is impossible to reform because they do not go out of business when they provide poor service as a private company would. Nor does FEMA.

Politicians cannot be expected to be good stewards of other people’s money obtained through the force of taxation. They are motivated by the same self-interest that motivates all people. Because of the professionalization of the political class, their interest is in winning elections, a process that is only possible by courting special interests.

It is the height of naïveté to place your faith in a governmental system that can only work if its politicians and bureaucrats are saints and angels.

Conclusion

The libertarian philosophy is the ultimate philosophy of tolerance. It is a philosophy of live and let live, of not initiating violence against any other individual, of liberty for all, of peace, and of prosperity.

That is why I am a Ron Paul libertarian.

This is based on a talk delivered at the Forum for Political Understanding, Pepperdine University, on April 7, 2008.

April 10, 2008

Stan Warford [send him mail] is a professor of computer science at Pepperdine University.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Can Barr Unite Ron Paul Supporters Under the Libertarian Flag?

Monday, April 07, 2008
Former GOP congressman considering Libertarian presidential bid
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press writer

• More Daily Report articles

Tools:

Print	Text Size
Email	Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican congressman Bob Barr is hinting strongly that he'll jump into the presidential race as a Libertarian.Barr, 59, who left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration, is expected to make an announcement Saturday at a Libertarian conference in Kansas City.Should he run, Barr might sap votes from Republican John McCain, but whether it would be enough to alter the outcome of the presidential vote in any state was uncertain.In a phone interview Friday, Barr wouldn't divulge his plans. But in response to widespread speculation that he will announce he is forming an exploratory committee, he said, "I do not intend to waste anybody's time that's there."A former U.S. attorney in Atlanta, Barr served eight years as a Republican congressman from Georgia before losing his seat in 2002 after a redistricting.When he announced he was joining the Libertarian Party in 2006, he said he had become disillusioned with Republicans' failure to cut government spending and with post-Sept. 11 erosions in civil liberty protections. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the government is endorsing torture and illegally spying on U.S. citizens.He currently runs a lobbying and public affairs firm with offices in Atlanta and outside Washington.His clients have included the American Civil Liberties Union and the Marijuana Policy Project, a group pushing Congress to allow medical marijuana use and to cut spending for what it says are failed anti-drug media campaigns aimed at young people. Barr also holds the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation and is a board member of the National Rifle Association.In the 1990s, he became a darling of conservatives for his persistent attacks on President Clinton. He was among the first to press for impeaching Clinton and helped manage House Republicans' impeachment case before the Senate.Even out of office, he has proven to be an effective fundraiser. He maintains a political action committee he formed as a congressman. In the current two-year election cycle, he has raised more than $1.2 million, spending most of it on direct mail. His staff said the mailings are intended to spread his "message of liberty."Andrew Davis, a national Libertarian Party spokesman, said the party is eagerly anticipating Barr's speech."We're really excited about what could come tomorrow," he said. "We would be thrilled to have him run for the nomination."The party, which generally advocates smaller government, holds its national convention in May in Denver. Sixteen candidates already are seeking the nomination, Davis said. But some of them could switch to seeking the vice presidential ticket if Barr gets in the race, Davis predicted.Among the other Libertarian presidential candidates is Mike Gravel, a former Democratic senator from Alaska who recently dropped out of the Democratic presidential race and became a Libertarian.

Another American Revolution?

American Revolution?

The Ron Paul legacy

Zach Germaniuk, Columnist

Issue date: 4/9/08 Section: News

Article Tools

Page 1 of 2 next >

In late 2006 and early 2007, rumors began spreading that Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988 and perhaps the most independent-thinking member of Congress, was considering running again for the country's highest office, this time as a Republican. The implications were mind-boggling. The looming "what if?" scenarios began to circle internet chat rooms and before you knew it Ron Paul was being hoisted aloft as a modern-day "messiah of liberty" in our troubled times. There is no doubt that despite almost no support from the Republican National Committee and certainly no help from the "fair and balanced" mega-media establishment, Ron Paul's campaign for President utilized the right amount of new-school tech-savvy and old-school Constitutionalism to rally a surprising cross section of Americans sick and tired of the same sick and tired politics emanating from Washington spin-doctors.

Conservatives and Republicans disenchanted with George W. Bush's profligate spending and corporate coddling came to the Ron Paul camp because his laissez-faire economic platform was a welcome change from the state interventionism that has come to characterize many aspects of our economy. Liberals and Democrats watching the United States getting caught in another "nation-building" quagmire correctly recognized Paul's anti-war, pro-freedom stance as common sense. Independents of all stripes, from the fairly mainstream to the radical fringe, all found something to identify with in the Ron Paul campaign. Even a certain dread locked anarcho-capitalist found something inspiring in the man's campaign, as he watched Paul slam-dunk Rudy Giuliani on national television.

Then reality came and gave us all a swift kick. In the back of our heads we all knew that Paul was destined to be an also-ran, a compelling argument but ultimately a novelty in the world of 21st Century sound-byte politics. There are the true believers, of course, who have already canonized Paul as the patron-saint of everything right and good in America, the same people who, more often than by chance, find themselves on late-night chat rooms expressing their concern that AIDS is a biological weapon manufactured by the government.

Ron Paul's candidacy, much like that prom after party where you may or may not have lost a certain V card, isn't coming back. Rather than continuing to heap praise on the Texas Congressman, we should focus instead on the revolutionary foundations that Paul's campaign introduced to the nation. For an American political discourse that has become so dominated by voices of fear, war, and orange threat-levels, Ron Paul reminded a lot of people that this nation was not founded on these voices, but instead on the revolutionary proposition that individual freedom is worth more than any security the state could provide - the idea that governments are at best a necessary evil in order to better protect the freedom of its citizens.

But just like at the aforementioned prom after party V card paradigm, the burning question is: but what comes next? Ron Paul's campaign raised an impressive sum of money- twice. He had organizers all across the country putting in countless hours getting the word out. He had a freakin' blimp. As good a candidate as Ron Paul might have been, as good of a start as his Presidency would have been, we should remember that revolution does not begin in the capitals among the powerful, but in the streets among the powerless. Ron Paul might have been a good and necessary spark, but we have a long way to go before we can hope to see light again. The American Revolution for the 21st Century isn't going to come from the top-down government policies of "Bush-lite" McCain, Ché Guabama, or Billary Clinton. It will come, as revolutions often do, when ordinary people again look past their four walls and roof and turn off their TVs long enough to see that the only bogeyman waiting for them is the one manufactured by their own leaders.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

What Are Missional Churches?

http://www.churchcentral.com/nw/s/template/Article.html/id/24659

What are missional churches?

by Rebecca Barnes 08 Apr 2008

Ten years of describing the latest in church trends as missional and yet we still don't know what that means. Maybe the term is intended to function that way. Perhaps the mystery is part of the charm.

J. Todd Billings, assistant professor of Reformed theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Mich., admitted the vagueness of the term, then took a stab at defining "missional" recently for Christianity Today.

"Some use missional to describe a church that rejects treating the gospel like a commodity for spiritual consumers; others frame it as a strategy for marketing the church and stimulating church growth. Some see the missional church as a refocusing on God's action in the world rather than obsessing over individuals' needs; others see it as an opportunity to 'meet people where they are' and reinvent the church for postmodern culture." Billings writes.

Whatever the meaning, the term is plied with multiple definitions by people who prefer it to describe either their own church or the way their church should be.

Billings' broad definition of missional is, "… a sense that the church is not primarily about us, but about God's mission." In this definition he concurs with the work of Craig Van Gelder, whose book "Ministry of the Missional Church" I reviewed recently for Church Central.

Van Gelder is also a professor—currently of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minn., and a former professor at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Mich., and holds degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the University of Texas at Arlington. Maybe you're beginning to think as I am that higher degrees are a requirement for comprehending this term missional.

Van Gelder categorizes churches as: corporate, established or missional. He further defines missional as a spiritual social community called to God's mission in the world.

That seems as vague as ever.

Enter pastor and church consultant Barry Winders, whose self-published work entitled, "Finding the Missional Path," may clarify missional by what it is not. Winders provides a concise and informative chart illustrating all the various ways churches can become distracted from their original mission—making disciples. See if any of these are familiar, either in your own institution, your house church, or in the congregations where you consult:

Missionary church – sees leaders as fundraisers and members as givers
Maintenance church – sees leaders as recruiters and members as clubbers
Seeker-sensitive church – sees leaders as presenters and motivators and members as seekers
Consumer church – sees leaders as producers and members as consumers
Church growth church – sees leaders as programmers, assimilators, analysts and members as participants
Activist church – sees leaders as catalysts and members as activists

I wish Winders had a correlative prescriptive chart for churches that are models to follow. I wish Van Gelder or Billings had more of a definition. Billings can only conclude by warning Christians that missional means about as many things as evangelical.

"With so many variant views, the term missional church now needs something like an FDA label: Warning: Contradictory and conflicting views of the church inside," Billings writes.

Van Gelder ends up defining missional as differing from other church growth and health trends such as purpose-driven or emergent, because it is more than a strategy to help struggling churches. Instead, he writes that missional is a community led by the Spirit of God. While that definition includes more types of churches than it excludes, it informs clearly on why this term missional is so nebulous and yet so attractive at the same time. I mean every healthy church wants to be a part of the Spirit of God's work in the world. And the Spirit is notoriously difficult to pin down in something as small as a working definition.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Kandice is home and doing great

Sorry for not posting this earlier, but Kandice was released from the hospital on Friday and is doing spectacular, much better than expected. Please continue to keep her in your prayers, because only time will tell what her functionality will truly be, but to God be the glory, so far so good.