Doug Van Pelt

I just filled up at $2.99 a gallon

Man, that is upsetting to pay that much for fuel.

In Entry #5 McManus calls dreams a type of "fuel" for the future. It's what keeps us going. We dream things, and then we do them. Maybe the "high cost" of dreams is sometimes not realizing them. McManus brings up some interest points about dreams:

1. Dreams don't quite "fit" in with Darwin's evolution. Dreams can be a liability.

2. We dream about way more than we can accomplish. Some dreams are just fanciful -- like my band Lust Control playing a new Woodstock Festival and preaching to 300,000 people from the stage about how this Jesus of the "Jesus movement" is real... That's not gonna happen. Playing in the NFL. Not gonna happen. I can dream of many things I was not designed to do.

3. Big dreams + nightmare for a life = dangerous combination.

He brings up this idea that, "if God were in His nature sinister, this would be a great way to torment us. We could come to this conclusion easily enough it if were not for one thing -- we can't live without dreams. In our worst moments, dreams haunt us, but when things are working the way they should, our dreams inspire us."

Another great quote in here I like is this:

"When we dwell on the past, we tend to want to live there. When we dream of the future, we want to go there. Our dreams are where God paints a picture of a life waiting to be created."

It sure would be cool if we inspired more people to dream and pursue their dreams. This is a better vocation than the dreaded Dream Crusher.

I ran into a Dream Crusher on Tuesday night. In preparing for the recent David Crowder story I wrote for CCM, I googled the name of Crowder's friend and pastor that died of electrocution while performing a baptism. Besides finding some information on the date and some reaction from loved ones, I also came across some opportunists of hate that used this event to vent their ideas and opinions about the "Emergent Church." Crowder's University Baptist Church could most likely be described as a "seeker friendly" church, because they try to create an environment where someone searching or doubting could ask questions. I happen to think it's a good idea. I'm glad people are exploring these ideas and providing a place where ideas can be challenged and wrestled with.

Seems a few people think that this accidental death was no accident, but instead it was the judgment of God. One guy brings up the story of Ananias and Sapphira from the book of Acts. He goes on to list several instances where Peter, Paul or Jesus did not mince words, which of course gave this guy a license to be brutal with his accusations and "holy permission" to tear apart this so-called heresy called "Emergent."

The problems with this guy's rant are many. First off, I'd like to ask him if he's a charismatic. Judging by his rants, I would bet you good money that he's not. That he believes that God sealed up the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit once the canon of Scripture was delivered to the church. That miracles were simply a method used in a defined and specified amount of time in the past just to verify the authority of Christ and His Word. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but if you're going to stick to that (dumb) theology, then you can't say that this death was God's judgment -- that He stepped into our time and moved His hand to bring about His judgment. That's just inconsistent.

He stands behind Jesus and Paul's seeming callousness towards the feelings of those around them in the midst of instructions of "it's better for a millstone to be tied around your neck and thrown into the sea than make a little one stumble" and "turn this one over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh." He believes this gives him license to cast forth judgment and bringing these examples up will cut off accusations of "unmerciful" and "hate-filled" before they come. It's true that these biblical examples show the main character saying things that were on the harsh side of things. The problem with using that, of course, is that we have to make the logical jump that this guy is indeed speaking with God's authority. He self-proclaims this to be the case, but I think he's flat out wrong. If he is wrong, then he's using the Bible as a club to dole out punishment he thinks is just. I bet this guy would be willing to go on TV news cameras and affirm Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's statements about the 9/11 attacks being the direct result of our country's stance on homosexuality and abortion as the reason. This sounds very foolish to me.

This guy uses quotes from Pastor Kyle Lake's last sermon, which was a real encouragement to use your senses, appreciate creation, and pursue the dreams God gives you. This guy picks it apart, holding up each quote and viewing it through a "touchy feely" lens, making it sound like it was fruity. The problem with his angle was that he was setting God up as someone Who is always serious, never appreciates entertainment, and never want any of His people to enjoy life. It's like "God's Word should only be pious and serious. Going to your son's baseball game would be a waste of time -- you could be witnessing or building God's kingdom during that time, not indulging your flesh with trivial pursuits." The guy just doesn't make sense to me. You'd think that he'd follow his own allegations or ideas to their logical conclusion; and you'd think that he'd think twice before pronouncing as something as serious as judgment on a body of believers. I think this guy made a dumb mistake there.

He seems like a good example of a "Dream Crusher" to me. I could hear this guy saying something like, "Dreams for for dreamers, losers, and the unemployed!" Or "Watch out! Dreams could be from Satan!"

Posted by Doug Van Pelt at September 27, 2007 09:25 AM