Is Radical really radical?

(why David Platt is the new Francis Chan)- my book review here March 7, 2011 in Book Reviews, Radical by David Platt with 99 Comments

After being bombarded by several friends about this book, I finally broke down and read David Platts book Radical. As you may know, Platt is the Sr. Pastor of a Mega-Church called The Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Alabama. Platt is one of the youngest Mega-Church pastors in the country who seeks to, in his own words, take back our faith from the American Dream. His book has been causing quite a stir in evangelical circles! Many people told me to read this book because, in their opinion, he was saying many of the same things that I had been saying about the American Church system. When a friend finally handed me a copy of the book, I figured I should take the time to read it. Wow, let me just say that I am stirred as a result of what I read in the book! This book review will take about 5-10 minutes to read. You should read this review even if you havent read Platts book. If you simply skim this review however, you will misunderstand me. Let me encourage you to read this whole article carefully. Before I get too far into this book review, allow me to let the cat out of the bag I dislike this book very much! No, Im not saying that I dislike this book because it challenged me, or because I didnt like Platts tone. I think he is a good writer and comes across very gracious. I dislike this book because it said many true things about the American church system, yet was built on several completely false understandings. Now before all you David Platt fans crucify me, let me assure you that I am not making any judgment calls about his heart in a negative way. Actually, I am pretty convinced that David Platt loves the Lord and really desires to serve and bring Jesus Christ glory. His heart and compassion for the poor and marginalized in society is beautiful! I have no issue with him personally. I resonate with Platts heart because I was him. While I was not a pastor of a mega-church in the bible-belt, I was an institutional church pastor for a few years nonetheless. Like Platt, I became disallusioned with the American church system pretty quickly. I desperately wanted to see and experience Christ through the church community that I read about in the New Testament. Like Platt, I went overseas and experienced parts of the church that were glorious and desired that here in America as well. I came to the same conclusions about the American Church system that Platt did, and like Platt, I even wrote a book about it! I kid you not when I say that except for the stories he used, the book I wrote was almost word for word what Platt wrote in Radical. It was weird to read such similar thoughts. No, I am not suggesting Platt plagiarized my work because it was never published. Why was it not published you ask? Well, one reason is because I was not a mega-institution pastor. When you are a pastor of a small or averaged sized institution, you cannot question the

system. When you are the pastor of a mega-institution, you can get a pass and say just about anything. As I read Radical, I thanked the Lord that my work was never published. I would have had to disavow the book! Before I get into the disagreements that I have with this book however, let me start with some things that I agree with. I agree with Platts assessment of the institution. Here are some quotes from Platt in chaptert 1 that are brutally honest: I was on a collision course with an American church culture where success is defined by bigger crowds, bigger budgets, and bigger buildings. I was now confronted with a startling reality: Jesus actually spurned the things that my church culture said were most important. Wow, what a statement! This next quote was Platts reaction to a Baptist newspaper that had two unrelated articles printed side by side. One article was celebrating the opening of a $23 million church facility, and the next article was celebrating how much money was sent overseas to Sudan. Here is Platts reaction: Twenty-three million dollars for an elaborate sanctuary and five thousand dollars for hundreds of thousands of starving men, women, and children, most of whom were dying apart from faith in Christ. Where have we gone wrong? How did we get to the place where this is tolerable? I applaud Platts questioning of this reality. Such is the reality of the institutional church world. I am convinced that, like Platt, more people need to question this system. Here is where I found Platts book severely lacking however. Platt does not seem to know the answer to the question he is asking regarding how we, as a church culture, got to this pathetic place. He seems to think that a lack of discipleship and obedience by people who claim to be followers of Christ is the real reason why the American church system is in the mess it is in. Basically speaking, he is blaming people. Let me cut Platt some slack. He is on a journey and he even says in the book that there is much that he still has to learn. I respect that, and I resonate with him. With that said, let me illustrate here the three major untruths that this book is built upon. Misunderstanding #1- Platt Still Sees The Institutional Church System As Legitimate While Platt questions the response of the church system regarding elaborate buildings and a lack of compassion for the poor, he never questions the existence of the institutional church system itself. He does not seem to understand that the institutional system he is openly questioning is actually built upon two unbiblical things: 1. An Old testament temple mentality 2. An unbiblical clergy / laity divide.

I actually wrote about this in response to Francis Chans recent message about the American church at a collegiate conference called Passion 2011. I will not rehash that argument here, but I would strongly suggest that you read that article by clicking here. I agree with Platts assessment in the first section of the book when he says that you cant share the life of Christ with the masses. My question for him is this: Why is he attempting to do that each and every Sunday in what he is calling church? Why is he beating the church for not looking like Jesus who lived outside the religious institutional box? Does he not realize that, as a mega-institution Sr. Pastor, he is sitting in a position that keeps the box in existence? I am in favor of destroying the box and setting the people free. As Francis Chan is currently finding out, it seems that you can call out the current religious system as being unbiblical and still be accepted and loved as long as you dont leave the system. As soon as you do, you are seen as unstable, and as someone who has walked off the deep end. In my opinion, Platt would have more credibility if he followed in Chans example. Hopefully He will. Misunderstanding #2- Platt Does Not Have A Grasp Of What True Repentance Actually Is Repentance is one of those words that has been hijacked by mans religious system. According to mans religious understanding of repentance, the burden is placed on our actions. In order to repent, we are urged to confess our sins and then seek to change our behavior and actions. It is all about obedience to what God requires. This understanding of repentance is unbiblical and false. It does not produce freedom, rather more bondage and performance. I have concluded that David Platt and Francis Chans messages resonate with us because, in a sort of a religiously sadistic way, the fleshly religious side of us likes a good beat me, Ive been bad message. Basically speaking, we feel good when we feel bad. Our religious flesh has an addiction to conviction. We just keep hearing how bad we are, keep attempting to be more obedient, and we never seem to see that part of the problem is the system that is keeping us in bondage to the box. Platt does not seem to understand that repentance (which literally means to change your mind) is a one step process, NOT a two step process! Once your mind truly changes about something, action naturally follows. Those who think you must (1.) have a change of mindset (repentance), and (2.) try to implement a new set of behaviors to go with the new mindset, usually revert back to religion and rules. Platt does not seem to understand that the real reason people arnt living like Christ in the American church system is simply because their minds arent changing about who Christ really is. Christ has not been made manifest to them. Many Americans in the church system know truths and information about Christ, but few know Him and are infatuated with Him. When we meet the girl or guy of our dreams and fall in love, we dont have to be convinced to give up our lives, and other lesser loves, for this person of our dreams. Do we have to give up our other lovers? Yes, of course, but it is a joy to leave everything else behind for the one we are in love with! People need a revelation of Jesus Christ in order to fall in love with Him, and Christ

is fully manifested and revealed through the church as He designed her according to Ephesians 1:23. This is why our understanding of the church is vitally important. By church, the scriptures mean much more than what we see in the institution that is typically called church today. One guy standing behind a pulpit beating us to be more obedient will not give us a full revelation of Christ. A group of people giving up things and going out as individuals to do good things (as Platt suggests in his book) will also not give us a revelation of Jesus Christ either. Please understand what I am saying. True repentance will always produce a change in action and behavior, but true repentance is not a change in behavior. Correct actions and behavior are simply by-products of repentance. If we get this wrong, we simply will revert back to man made attempts at righteousness. Good works may result because of our human attempts to be more obedient, but it will not be the revelation of Jesus Christ that the creation is actually longing for. Misunderstanding #3- Platt Does Not Have A Grasp Of What True Biblical Discipleship & Missions Is Unfortunately, Platts misunderstanding of what it means to make disciples is nothing new. It is a common mistake. In his book, Platt repeatedly tells us that we need to simply be obedient to Christs commission to make disciples of all the nations. Like Platt, for years I read Matthew 28:18-20 as a command to me individually. I need to make disciplesI need to go to the nationsI need to baptizeI need to teachIII, etc I no longer believe this! Let me explain. If we just read Matthew 28 with an institutional and individualistic frame of mind, and separate it from the rest of the New Testament, then Platts understanding of discipleship is correct. If we rid ourselves of our western individualistic mindset and look at this command in the context of the rest of the New Testament, however, well see that Platts understanding of making disciples falls way short of what Jesus was actually talking about. Jesus said that when a disciple is fully trained, he would be like his master. When we talk about making disciples of Christ in all the nations, we are talking about seeing His essence and person manifested in every tribe and tongue. I have a few questions for you: If someone cloned your big toe, would it be a representation (disciple) of you, or just a part of you? Do you think that you individually are one of the many members of Christs body, or do you think that you individually are the fullness of Christs body? Does Jesus simply want body parts manifested in every tribe & tongue of the earth, or does He want His full body represented in every tribe and tongue? Platts description and examples of making disciples clearly show his individualistic and institutional mindset. The fundamental mistake that Platt is making is that he is viewing the person of Jesus Christ from a pre-pentecost mindset, not a post-pentecost mindset. When the

church was birthed, Christs body fundamentally changed. Christ went from being a single individual, to a multi-membered body that could no longer be expressed by any one individual. According to Ephesians 1, the fullness of Christ now resides in His body which is the church made up of many functioning members! Isnt that amazing? God is actively advancing one purpose in the world today. He is advancing the image and essence of His Son to all the nations. Here is a statement that I would like for you to dwell on: A true disciple of Christ is a community, not an individual. Only a community of fully functioning (not passive) members who are living by Christs divine life can adequately contain and promote the fullness of the person of Jesus Christ to the nations. The scriptures describe us, individually, as being living stones. We have been made alive in Christ. God is not interested in only turning dead stones into living stones however, rather He is building a house out of those living stones according to 1 Pet. 2:5. This house of God (people in Christ, in local areas, operating together as a family unit) is what God is building and assembling. Like Platt, most institutional Christians and most missionaries are completely ignorant of what this means. Platt sees his current American church culture as unbiblical, so the last thing he wants to do is replicate his current church culture elsewhere. I totally agree. The answer, however, is not to compel individual Christians to work harder or be more obedient, rather the challenge should be to revisit what a fully functioning local church actually is, and what it means for a local community of believers to abide in the vine and live by the divine life of Christ. Anything short of that is simply more religion. Unfortunately, Platts book completely skipped over these essential realities. Christians who have only experienced life inside the institution are going to have a hard time reproducing the community life of Christ they have never experienced. Conclusion While I agree and applaud Platts assessment of the broken American evangelical church system, it is my desire that we would not respond by doing more good works and trying to be more obedient. What is greatly needed is a fresh vision of Jesus Christ. T. Austin Sparks said this: You and I, dear friends, individually, and if we belong to a company of the Lords people, that company, will only make progress toward that full, ultimate end of God in Christ if we have a spiritual vision of Jesus Christ. Vision is essential to progress. This vision must include a correct understanding of Christ as Head, and Christ as a body. This vision is not understood, nor practiced, by the institutional church world. In the institution, man is the functional head of the church. There is also no understanding of the body of Christ as a participatory community as well. In the institutional church system, we are treated and function simply as a collection of individuals. A lack of this whole vision of Christ is why the institution looks completely different from the church of the New Testament.

While David Platts book recognizes that the American Church system is not biblical, this book is completely void of a profound vision of Jesus Christ (Jesus as the Head, & body). We need a fresh vision of Him, and we must not settle for anything less. May the Lord give us all a renewed vision of Christ. For His bride, Jamal Jivanjee

Comments on Jamals Review of Radical

Jamal asked me to share some of the thoughts that I shared with him in private regarding this post. I havent yet read everyone elses comments, so I apologize if I am re-stating something that has already been said. What I share here is and edited version of what I shared with him more privately. 1. I appreciate how you express concern in regard to the dangers of saying something is wrong while continuing to be part of perpetuating the problem. Mega-churches that are pastor-centric do not solve the consumer church culture issues. Mega-churches have their strengths and weaknesses, but in a general sense in the United States speaking against consumer culture is not one of their strengths. At the same time, it is important that we be where God has called us to be. Sometimes God calls us to remain in the situation that we are in for the purpose of being a voice that can be heard. (God helped us to get to that place in the first place, didnt He?) For example, God has called me to be in the institutional church for this time period in my life in order to fulfill His calling on my life to be an evangelist. I am part of an institutional church that strives for the unity of the church and in many ways has made this our polar star. As a Christian movement we discovered that we needed to become a recognized institutional denomination in order to gain the respect from other denominations so that we could be a voice for unity amongst them. When we are obedient to answering Gods call to be where God has called us to be we often our blessed by seeing unexpected fruit! Who knew that my being a woman ordained in the Protestant tradition, several doors would be opened for the gospel to be preached among my friends and family members? 2. I appreciate what you say about myth 2. Here are several different thoughts in response: a) I disagree with your statement: When we meet the girl or guy of our dreams and fall in love, we dont have to be convinced to give up our lives, and other lesser loves, for this person of our dreams. This is more true of adolescent romance, than adult romance. Love/marriage as an adult really requires a decision there is the infatuation stage, but then there is also the choice stage. In many ways I think this is why after a certain age it is so difficult to get married because we want it to all happen in one swoop like it did when we were teens, and it doesnt. b) I agree, if the Christian community functioned the way it does in the Bible people would both be attracted to and pushed away from Jesus in a powerful way! I think that Christianity in the U.S. has two aspects there is our Christian community this is the family and friends who we maintain Christ-like relationships with and then there is the institutional church which is where we are challenged intellectually/academically in our thinking and our given the opportunity to worship cooperatively. Institutional church helps us to imagine the descriptions of worship in the book of Revelation, whereas our Christian community helps us to live out service and love as described in Acts 2. There are ways of practicing our faith that we can do best in smaller more vulnerable

communities, but there are other ways of expressing our faith that require the gathering and resources of a large number of people. c) I agree that repentance is a transformation of the heart for some this happens instantaneously and for others it is a process. For example, God has been working and growing me in regard to the idea of what it means to be a steward of creation. I am convicted in little ways and am slowly interpreting Scripture in new ways as a result. But I also think God teaches us the way we learn best. Some of us need a knock on the head and a quick transition, for others of us it is as the United Methodists describe the Holy Spirit, a strange warming. And even if our hearts and worldview has been changed by repentance, it doesnt mean the world around us will allow us to transform immediately. I practice the Sabbath, but as a teenager when I first started the practice I found it difficult because my father expected me to mow the yard specifically on Sunday. It took some time and work to be able to show both my human father and my Heavenly Father respect. Anyways, I like how you point out that repentance is a transformation of how one thinks and believes and the action is the fruit of that repentance. Sometimes though, I think we need to start with the action, because this then helps mold the heart. 3. Lovely! Growing up in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), I was taught that communion/the Lords Supper is communion because the body of Christ was present in the people that were gathered. It wasnt so much about the question of whether or not the bread actually or representatively became the body of Christ as it was about whether the Christian community was gathered together and whether or not we had been reconciled to each other. It was also something we did whenever we were together and anyone could preside. In fact, once I was baptized and had confessed my faith in front of a congregation I was welcome to preside. I remember us youth presiding at and serving each other at summer camp. Communion is not only about Jesus Christ being the ultimate and final passover lamb, but it is about the body of Christ as present in the Christian community! I also agree that Jesus confronted the manner that Jewish religion was practiced at the time, although he did not speak against the Old Testament system which Jesus fulfilled. Ironically this is one of the key things we studied at seminary in our New Testament class we discussed what it meant for Jesus to bring the Kingdom of God to earth. As you mentioned, we definitely need more Kingdom of God language but we need to help both the mainline church and evangelical church re-examine the meaning of this language as instructed by Jesus. It wasnt just about the four spiritual laws or social justice, but rather a complete transformation of who we are, how we interact, etc. In your concerns for the church, I hear a lot of Muslim criticism of Christianity, which is interesting. Side Note: One of the current questions I hear in our U.S. Christian culture that really gets on my nerves is the question, Is s/he an evangelical? Am I follower of Paul or John or Calvin or Luther or Piper? I am a follower of Christ! If I respond to this question by

saying, Yes, she claims to be a follower of Christ I am supporting the definition of Christianity as evangelical. I dont think we should replace our identifying ourselves as Christian with our identifying ourselves as evangelical. Christs name needs to stay at the center of our identity. So, I suppose if Im asked, Are you an evangelical? and I respond I am a Christian and if that doesnt seem satisfactory, I may answer, Yes, I am a Catholic, evangelical, mainline Christian who is a follower and growing disciple of Jesus Christ. Thanks Jamal. Reply

1. Stasia March 16, 2011 at 3:47 am # oops clarification on point 1 my point about being an ordained protestant was that doors have been opened among Catholics for me to share my faith. Which has been quite an unexpected surprise of fruit! Reply

Jamal Jivanjee March 18, 2011 at 9:59 pm # Stasia, Thanks sister for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. I appreciate how you have thought through these points. Here are some initial thoughts that I have: 1. I like what you said about remaining in the place where God has called you. Thats really all we can do. God has us where we are for very specific reasons. For me, there came a time that I was no longer able to continue in the system because it went against the vision of Christ that I was coming to see. I used to think that God could not use me unless I was in the institutional system. That is why I stayed so long. When God showed me that He was not bound by mans system, I took pleasing or serving that system a lot less seriously. It gave me freedom to pursue Christ (both Him and His body) no matter how it went against mans system. 2. I like what you said about teenage versus adult romance. Great point! It starts with infatuation, but develops into something much more deeper.

3. As far as repentance goes, I still think that mind change comes first. I dont really think action change leads to repentance. That is mans way. That is the worlds system. That is the heart of mans religion. Action always flows out of renewal. Yes, we could do good things in a religious way, but God is not interested in that. He is looking for internal transformation. Thanks again for your thought out response. This is all the thoughts I have for now, but I will share more later as well. Blessings my sister! Reply

2. Travis Hutchinson March 16, 2011 at 3:54 am # Jamal, Two thoughts: One, I really disagree with your understanding of metanoia (repentance). While pagan Greeks assuredly used the word to mean change of heart/mind, Jews in Jesus day certainly did not. In the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, the word metanoia was used to signify either a changing of direction (behavior) or a change of heart and behavior at the same time. Amos 7:3 is a good example. Where the Septuagint declares that the Lord metanoia-ed, the ESV renders it the Lord relented. Another instance is Proverbs 14:15-16 where the Septuagint says that the wise comes into metanoia, carefully planning his steps, fearing and turning away from evil. Much more learned than I have demonstrated time and again that the defining of metanoia as change of mind is the worldview of Greek pagans (assisted by liberal moderns such as Rudolf Bultmann). This is why Jesus says, Repent and believe in Mark 1:15. Belief (pistis) is a heart trust. By your definition, Jesus would seem to be repeating himself. But hes not. Hes telling people to turn away from their sins and trust in him. Second, I am constantly confused and bemused by your use of the term institutional church. I know its meant to be pejorative, but Im not sure what it means. Do you mean connectional church, a church with some kind of formal attachment to other congregations? Do you mean congregational church, where people identify with a single gathered local group? Do you mean hierarchical church where there are some kind of formal offices? Or do you simply mean a worldly church which has ceased to be a dwelling of the Spirit and is only the place where men do some kind of religious business? You see, I belong to a denomination which I am sure you would declare institutional, but which resembles very little of what you describe, especially the two congregations I have belonged to. I read your stuff and I think, Wow, the congregations youve taken part in must really suck. The problem is that I run into lots of Christians that talk like you write and I find a great deal of rejection of accountability, undealt with sin, and a decided lack of Kingdom fruit. Im sure that theyre not all like that, but I run into it a lot.

I have a hard time making sense of the New Testaments picture of community without what I suspect you call the institutional church. And by the way, Im not a hater here. I like you and love you. Im grateful for what youve done and think about many of the things you write. Peace to you. Reply

Stasia March 18, 2011 at 10:54 pm # Additional thought I am also curious about your definition of institutional church. I suspect we all hear what you say when you use that term differently. When I hear it, I think denominations. Sometimes it sounds like you mean liturgy. Could you define it for us? Thanks. Reply

Jamal Jivanjee March 21, 2011 at 5:52 am # Stasia, You have asked a great question my sister. Instead of defining the institutional system, Id like to quote a friend of mine who has put into words what He sees as the church that is described in the New Testament. In my opinion this is the most biblical definition of the N.T. church that I have seen. Here is the quote: By organic church, I mean a non-traditional church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic church life is a grass roots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, openparticipatory meetings (opposed to pastor-to-pew services), nonhierarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional Leader and Head of the gathering. Put another way, organic church life is the experience of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, its the fellowship of the Triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings. -Frank ViolaObviously, this is much different than what is practiced in the institutional system today. I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Blessings:) Reply

Stasia March 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm # Thanks Jamal for taking the time to share this. My favorite depiction of the body of Christ as exemplified in the Christian community is from Acts 2, All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved. This is so beautiful and matches with my experience of starting a new ministry. It is an exciting time! But as we study the book of Acts and even Pauls letters we discover that the community of Christians, while remaining followers of Christ, transform their interactions as the church grows and the outside circumstances pushing against them changes. When you study the formation of denominations in the United States because we are the birth place of such things (in the Protestant Reformation organization was more closely tied to language and geographic location), you discover that there is the time that looks much like the time of Acts 2. But then as the numbers increase and the outside pressures change, Christians begin to realize that they need to organize in new ways in order to maintain accountability and be more affective in their witness. About year three of doing a start-up ministry, I realized that we needed more of an administrative structure, which I could not give the ministry. In order to be more affective in our outreach we needed more money, and when you are outreaching to the poor and those whose families have had no religious association for more than two generations, it is difficult to find the money to continue the outreach. (I wish our U.S. society was not so money driven but it is. If we all had farms and grew our own plants, we wouldnt have needed money to buy food for our gatherings. Yes this also shows a disconnect in the church in that we are segregated by economic and ethnic status, but Im not sure if it is the institution that causes this problem or other factors.) At about that time God placed on both my heart and this other womans heart that God was calling her to take over and lead the ministry in this direction.

There are some things that are much easier for us to do as a well linked national and global community. For practical purposes we need key people to be our communication officials to help us link together to do this. How do we end human trafficking if we are only in relationship with only 20 Christians? If one in our midst is called to this ministry of fighting human trafficking, how do we assure the person gets the proper training, learns from the mistakes and success of other Christians who have gone before, and acts in such a way that brings help not further harm to the victims? It seems that when we all link together as Christians and form organizations like International Justice Mission that we are more affective. IJM is a Christian institution with a hierarchy. It is a fruit of the church. When we read though Acts, and even the gospels, there is an order that is developing. Jesus chose 12 disciples, and of these he focused his attention on 3, and then 1. Peter was called to be the evangelist to the Jews while Paul was called to be the evangelist to the Gentiles. Paul had to check in with the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Scripture clearly speaks as early as the book of Acts about elders, deacons, apostles. Even before this the church was delegating roles, Stephen was one of seven chosen to provide pastoral care while the others were focused on preaching. Yes, there is brokenness in the church. There will be until the Kingdom of God which is already here is fully here. Yes, some church structures are too hierarchial and have led to abuse. I am a woman in ministry, I know well the patterns of the church and the stage that many denominations, Christian organizations, and geographic communities of Christ go through because it seems that all begin allowing women to be in leadership and all go through a time frame that is related to educating that limits womens roles and eventually it seems that they all move out of it. So, if one thinks a community of Christians is not institutional, check to see what percentage of women are in leadership. If it is small, there is some type of insititutional structure going on. But not all institutions act this way. I think what your blog readers desire, is for you to be a prophet who can speak against the weaknesses and the specific sins of the institution while recognizing that God is still at work within the institution and there are some strengths. It is obvious that God has placed this passion on your heart and I admire it much. I want your voice to be heard. But when what others hear is institutional church is bad and this description of church is more authentic it doesnt give them any direction as to how to change. It leaves the reader with the question, So what am I suppose to do? Am I to bale on my church and all the Christian family I have there? What about the older people who I need and they need me? Am I to quit my job so I have more time? What part of the institution is wrong and how can it be changed?

One thing that we discussed in clinical pastoral education is how what we say is perceived. Sometimes it is perceived differently than we intend. As a pastor ordained with the Disciples of Christ, I am expected to help fellow pastors see how others perceive them, so that they may more effectively communicate what God has called them to speak. When people respond strongly against what we say, we can see it as a convicting movement of the Spirit in their lives, we can see it as opposition for speaking the message God has given us, we can see it as a correction to our incorrect teaching, we can see it as a sign that what we are communicating is being misunderstood, and/or we can watch for themes in what people say and ask ourselves what do these themes mean and how is God calling me to respond to them. Just some thoughts. Thanks for being open on a forum like this! Reply

Stasia March 21, 2011 at 1:03 pm # So, what we hear you saying is that institutions are wrong and that we should get rid of any form of the body of Christ that manifests itself as an institution. Is this accurate? If so, are you okay with us ending IJM? Christian global relief organizations? Any church that meets in a building that it owns? Any house church that has someone who is appointed as the organizer? Any Christian educational system? Christian retirement homes? Orphanages? What is the breadth and the limitations of your prophetic condemnation? (I mean this in sincerity, not as a reproach I really do want to better understand what the message is that God is delivering through you because I love reading Acts 2 and appreciate my experiences of the Christian community I appreciate that my Christian friends will drop everything and fly out to see me if I need it.) And practically, we need a description of what this logistically looks like today. How does it happen? Describe your experiences that have modeled this! Who has been part of it? Do you meet? When do you decide to meet?