They didn’t always get the issues out exactly on time, but that was cool. Knowing all the stuff they were involved in (ministry-wise) made the publication irregularities understandable — and the quality of the magazine made the wait well worth it.

**sigh**

Now I need to go listen to Resurection Band’s “Lament” album, to perk me up.

“You have just greatly reduced your chances of pastoring a mega-church, but you will be able to sleep at night.”

I’m more and more convinced that a church with a regular attendance of over 1000 or so is something very few pastors can handle well. Once you get to that size the business if running the church can very easily get in the way of what should be the purpose of the church. Think about a monthly power bill of $10,000 or even $100,000? What kind of pressure is that?

And on top of that a senior pastor who can guide such a church without letting his ego grow too much is a rare paster.

This is true of almost any magazine except the very very very large ones. You have to fill pages on a regular basis. There is a clock ticking. Fill it or miss publishing the issue. It creates all kinds of pressure to put SOMETHING on the page. TV and Radio have similar issues.

This is one reason I think that it’s almost impossible to publish or go on the air with a theology based theme. Very few people have the ability to feed the monster. And the monster never goes away.

iMonk can publish 3 topics in a day or go away for a week. A regularly published magazine can’t do that.

That’s fine, but as an editorial policy it is doesn’t mix well with the other content of the mag. Having John Piper and Lou Engle in the mag together is superficially OK, but go to any depth at all and it becomes a problem. And the prosperity disease is the biggest example.

I love and appreciate Relevant. I want it to do well, but this is an issue that needs to be raised in a positive, but honest way by those of us who appreciate Relevant.

I subscribed to Relevant a little over a year ago because it looked interesting and was cheap. I’ve found it to be a maddening mix of intelligent, thought provoking writing and hip, flavor of the day non-discerning inanity. The first issue I received they did a write-up about a prayer event in large stadiums called “The Call” that was a brainchild of Lou Engle. The International House of Prayer and Mike Bickle figured prominently in the article. It largely focused on the enthusiasm and prayer focus of the attendees, but there was not one mention of any controversy surrounding either of the major organizers (Lou Engle is one of the brainwashers in Jesus Camp that you mentioned earlier and Mike Bickle is another of the infamous Kansas City Prophets). I’ve also spotted multiple ads for conferences featuring these two. Living in the Kansas City area and being familiar with current and former IHOP members, the unquestioning affirmation given to these two has left me wary of the magazine ever since. I still read it because I know there are a lot of freelance articles that are worthwhile, but I take anything coming from the editors with a huge grain of salt.

Who’s the prosperity Gospel cancer in that group?

>I sense you have some problem with denominational rags’ lack of independence…

Wha….huh??

>Why do you equate acceptance of advertising with endorsement of the thing advertised?

I don’t. And that doesn’t have a thing to do with a single point I made. It’s like having a prolife editorial policy and running ads from Planned Parenthood.

Only here at IM fans can you get commended for encouraging criticism of Piper and criticized for encouraging integrity of message and money at Relevant. Buy your season tickets right here.

I’m not the iMonk but let me see if I can answer your question for myself.

I’m a minister in a reformed church. Though it’d cause a lot of controversy, I wouldn’t have a problem if a Wesleyan festival or Charismatic seminary or Baptist revival or Manning/Merton EWBCAC ’09 Conference advertised in our denomination’s magazine. Why not? All of those groups pass the “mere Christianity” test. Even though I’ve got some disagreements with all of them (okay, maybe not the EWBCACs), I’m ready to embrace them as brothers and sisters.

However, when we get to things such as denial of the Trinity or the “Prosperity Gospel”, I have to draw the line. I’m not Holy Spirit, but using my best discernment, I have to wonder if we’re on the same team or not. When it comes to Jakes and Osteen, I have to sadly say that we aren’t.

And what’s my standard? The ecumenical creeds – which faithfully summarize Biblical doctrine.

Okay, about reformed theologians taking the coin and sharing the stage with Prosperity types, I can see the GBA possibilities. Having never been confronted with the conundrum of accepting a chance to share orthodoxy with thousands while suffering GBA with the Brylcreem man coming on stage next, I see some merit to your “ends justifying the means” response earlier. Methinks it would not be quite so clear if the offer were actually made to you, however.

But I think your busting up on “Relevant” for taking money for advertising from people the editors may not agree with is pretty wrong. “You mean, people organizing a costly event hoping to draw people to attend it are willing to advertise in a publication that reaches the target audience? I’m shocked, shocked!And a publication that needs to pay its bills is taking money for space on their pages from sources they may not be in agreement with? How *dare* they!”

I have my doubts that if the folks at Relevant let the “Brennan Manning/Thomas Merton Evangelicals Who Believe Catholics are Christians 2009 Conference” advertise in their magazine you would be having this much trouble, whether the editors at Relevant agreed with the stance of the organizers or not.

Let’s face it: if we are going to have magazines that depend on revenues for existence (as I sense you have some problem with denominational rags’ lack of independence), then along with articles from Piper, Grudem, etc., you are going to have to ignore the ads for sardine cans full of “Holy Land Air” and the like. Why do you equate acceptance of advertising with endorsement of the thing advertised?

Sean

Just ask God to ‘bring em down.’