<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pulpit Picks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/</link>
	<description>A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve Camp</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/comment-page-1/#comment-7073</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Camp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/#comment-7073</guid>
		<description>The need for new church plants is profound today.  I live in Nashville, TN and even with a church on almost every street corner, there still remains the need for God&#039;s people to be trained in the Word of God and equipped to do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16).

I couldn&#039;t help but notice that on Ken Davis&#039;s list of 10 reasons why we should plant churches, that all them were reactive primarily in response to cultural stats and not developed from the truth of Scripture.

&lt;b&gt;For example, he sites:&lt;/b&gt;
1. Numbers of unchurched
2. Numbers of churches decreasing
3. Evangelism done better through church planting
4. Older churches are, the less evangelistic they become
5. Most established churches in survival mode
6. The need to develop urban theology and urban churches
7. To reach growing numbers of new ethnic groups
8. Not reaching today&#039;s young people
9. Children and grand children need a place to learn leadership
10. Counteract the rise of false religions

While some of these reasons are understandable, is it really according to the biblical imperative?  It was interesting reading Mr. Davis article, but what was more fascinating is what he actually didn&#039;t say.  He failed to give even one Scriptural reason to plant churches and to develop his reasons from the foundation and truth of Scripture.  Even within his own pragmatic paradigm, the biblical imperative was absolutely silent.

I was curious, since this blog is firmly rooted and grounded in the Word of God and sound doctrine, why did you find Mr. Davis&#039;s article so compelling on church planting and worthy of this commendation: &lt;i&gt;&quot;there have been several outstanding articles worth your time and effort&quot;&lt;/i&gt;?

Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The need for new church plants is profound today.  I live in Nashville, TN and even with a church on almost every street corner, there still remains the need for God&#8217;s people to be trained in the Word of God and equipped to do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16).</p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t help but notice that on Ken Davis&#8217;s list of 10 reasons why we should plant churches, that all them were reactive primarily in response to cultural stats and not developed from the truth of Scripture.</p>
<p><b>For example, he sites:</b><br />
1. Numbers of unchurched<br />
2. Numbers of churches decreasing<br />
3. Evangelism done better through church planting<br />
4. Older churches are, the less evangelistic they become<br />
5. Most established churches in survival mode<br />
6. The need to develop urban theology and urban churches<br />
7. To reach growing numbers of new ethnic groups<br />
8. Not reaching today&#8217;s young people<br />
9. Children and grand children need a place to learn leadership<br />
10. Counteract the rise of false religions</p>
<p>While some of these reasons are understandable, is it really according to the biblical imperative?  It was interesting reading Mr. Davis article, but what was more fascinating is what he actually didn&#8217;t say.  He failed to give even one Scriptural reason to plant churches and to develop his reasons from the foundation and truth of Scripture.  Even within his own pragmatic paradigm, the biblical imperative was absolutely silent.</p>
<p>I was curious, since this blog is firmly rooted and grounded in the Word of God and sound doctrine, why did you find Mr. Davis&#8217;s article so compelling on church planting and worthy of this commendation: <i>&#8220;there have been several outstanding articles worth your time and effort&#8221;</i>?</p>
<p>Grace and peace,<br />
Steve<br />
Col. 1:9-14</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Whyte Stonne</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/comment-page-1/#comment-6869</link>
		<dc:creator>Whyte Stonne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/#comment-6869</guid>
		<description>Cautionary note on this outstanding pick: Ken Davis&#039; thoughts on Ten Reasons to Plant Churches:

&quot;New churches have an excitement and vitality which attracts &#039;seekers&#039; and previously unchurched people. They’ll come and check out a new body of believers because it may meet in a non-traditional setting. Most new churches grow because they are very intentional about discovering culturally relevant yet biblically sound ways to reach secular people.&quot;

Excitement, vitality, seekers, non-traditional setting, culturally relevant.  Okay by me.

&quot;The spiritual deadness of our North American culture is showing up in many churches. We need to be much more aggressive in intentionally starting new works just to take the place of those that are closing their doors.&quot;

Intentionally starting new works -- okay by me.

&quot;These believers [from other cultures] have trouble fitting into existing English-speaking, mostly white congregations that do not understand their culture, music, and special concerns. New ethnic and multi-ethnic churches are the best answer for the needs of new Americans.&quot;

Accommodating differences in culture and music -- okay.  Special concerns -- okay by me.

&quot;Our children and grandchildren need churches with room for them to become responsible Christians and leaders. People feel more connected and committed to ministries they help lead. Leadership positions are usually filled in existing churches by long-time members, shutting out younger believers from decision-making.&quot;

Shutting out younger believers -- hmm.  Money talks. But anyway . . .

&quot;They can be reached by Word-based churches who will adapt their methodologies to reach this high-tech generation. New churches with young pastors and leaders are our best hope for reaching millions of unsaved, secular youth.&quot;

Adapting methodologies, high-tech generation, young pastors and leaders. Hmm, okay.  Question?  Why &quot;Word-based&quot;? Substituting &quot;Word&quot; for the word &quot;Bible&quot;?  

Sounds fine, doesn&#039;t it--in the abstract.

I think the article is great.  I simply find it interesting that the major points of the Davis article have all been roundly criticized here in previous threads.  

Davis&#039; arguments are a virtual restatement of the rationale for the Emergent Church, for Seekers Services, for house churches, and the rest of the competition.  Yet, given the properly vetted context, here they are. 

Davis Practitioners beware: have your credit card handy, google &quot;flack jacket&quot;-- 

And watch for friendly fire. 

www.eagleeyebodyarmor.com/usa/civilian.htm  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cautionary note on this outstanding pick: Ken Davis&#8217; thoughts on Ten Reasons to Plant Churches:</p>
<p>&#8220;New churches have an excitement and vitality which attracts &#8217;seekers&#8217; and previously unchurched people. They’ll come and check out a new body of believers because it may meet in a non-traditional setting. Most new churches grow because they are very intentional about discovering culturally relevant yet biblically sound ways to reach secular people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Excitement, vitality, seekers, non-traditional setting, culturally relevant.  Okay by me.</p>
<p>&#8220;The spiritual deadness of our North American culture is showing up in many churches. We need to be much more aggressive in intentionally starting new works just to take the place of those that are closing their doors.&#8221;</p>
<p>Intentionally starting new works &#8212; okay by me.</p>
<p>&#8220;These believers [from other cultures] have trouble fitting into existing English-speaking, mostly white congregations that do not understand their culture, music, and special concerns. New ethnic and multi-ethnic churches are the best answer for the needs of new Americans.&#8221;</p>
<p>Accommodating differences in culture and music &#8212; okay.  Special concerns &#8212; okay by me.</p>
<p>&#8220;Our children and grandchildren need churches with room for them to become responsible Christians and leaders. People feel more connected and committed to ministries they help lead. Leadership positions are usually filled in existing churches by long-time members, shutting out younger believers from decision-making.&#8221;</p>
<p>Shutting out younger believers &#8212; hmm.  Money talks. But anyway . . .</p>
<p>&#8220;They can be reached by Word-based churches who will adapt their methodologies to reach this high-tech generation. New churches with young pastors and leaders are our best hope for reaching millions of unsaved, secular youth.&#8221;</p>
<p>Adapting methodologies, high-tech generation, young pastors and leaders. Hmm, okay.  Question?  Why &#8220;Word-based&#8221;? Substituting &#8220;Word&#8221; for the word &#8220;Bible&#8221;?  </p>
<p>Sounds fine, doesn&#8217;t it&#8211;in the abstract.</p>
<p>I think the article is great.  I simply find it interesting that the major points of the Davis article have all been roundly criticized here in previous threads.  </p>
<p>Davis&#8217; arguments are a virtual restatement of the rationale for the Emergent Church, for Seekers Services, for house churches, and the rest of the competition.  Yet, given the properly vetted context, here they are. </p>
<p>Davis Practitioners beware: have your credit card handy, google &#8220;flack jacket&#8221;&#8211; </p>
<p>And watch for friendly fire. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eagleeyebodyarmor.com/usa/civilian.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.eagleeyebodyarmor.com/usa/civilian.htm</a>  <img src='http://www.sfpulpit.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: donsands</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/comment-page-1/#comment-6844</link>
		<dc:creator>donsands</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/27/pulpit-picks/#comment-6844</guid>
		<description>I was speaking with a pastor one day, and he asked me, &quot;What do you mean, going deep in the Word?&quot;

I said, &quot;I can tell you what isn&#039;t going deep. Left Behind Christianity.&quot;

I suppose all this LB stuff is alright, but it&#039;s so plastic to me.

I also checked out Brian McLaren, and boy, is he in big trouble with the Lord. May his heart be turned back to the essentials of God&#039;s Word. Amen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was speaking with a pastor one day, and he asked me, &#8220;What do you mean, going deep in the Word?&#8221;</p>
<p>I said, &#8220;I can tell you what isn&#8217;t going deep. Left Behind Christianity.&#8221;</p>
<p>I suppose all this LB stuff is alright, but it&#8217;s so plastic to me.</p>
<p>I also checked out Brian McLaren, and boy, is he in big trouble with the Lord. May his heart be turned back to the essentials of God&#8217;s Word. Amen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
