Dr. Randy LowrySeptember 13 2007 at 10:57 PM
|Scott (Login atruthare)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
This week in the Cincinnati Ohio area, is the Area Wide Worship service (www.areawideworship.org). Dr. Randy Lowry is the keynote speaker. Can anyone tell me anything about this man?
Re: Dr. Randy Lowry
|September 14 2007, 9:17 PM |
You could not meet a better friend. Randy came to Lipscomb from Pepperdine University School of Law.
He is internationally known as one of the founders of the alternative dispute resolution process. He has devoted himself to providing services to large corporations and individuals in the dispute resolution process. Both as a teacher and mediator, he has resolved hundreds, if not thousands, of legal disputes pending in the court system. He founded and headed the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service which employs retired judges across the country to take cases that have been filed and resolve them without the necessity for trial.
Randy used the skills he learned in mediating civil disputes to utilize mediation techniques to resolve many church and congregational disputes. Not all have been successful (Madison) but many have been met with success.
Introduce yourself to him and you will find him extremely personable and intriguing. You will be blessed by knowing him!
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: Dr. Randy Lowry
|September 17 2007, 4:00 PM |
Whenever disputes come to "arbitration" or "mediation," the overall plan is to have all bickering parties come to some sort of compromise, so that everyone is "happy." That is, one party gives a little and takes a little, and the other party does likewise.
That's more easily accomplished with worldly matters that do not involve the Church, the Word of God, or worshiping Him. But when it comes to parties bickering over the Word, the Church, and worship, will compromise be just as effective? Usually when compromise is initiated, something or some things have to "give," that is, be curtailed, eliminated, or short-changed. Can anyone advise bickering parties that to be "happy," some parts of the Word must be bypassed, ignored, thrown out; that worldly practices may be implemented into worship to "please" everyone, when the Word does not authorize such practices?
This is to say that worldly tactics used to "mediate" disputes in the Church may "resolve" disputes, but will they fully satisfy the Word of God at the same time without compromising it one jot or tittle?
Now Dr. Randy Lowry may indeed be an extremely personable and intriquing person as well as a brilliant mediator. According to Tom, Lowry is reputed to have mediated many church and congregational cases "successfully." By that, we can only infer that Lowry was able to convince all bickering parties to return to the principles and teachings of the New Testament and forget about implementing worldly, denominational practices that the New Testament does not authorize. But if "success" meant that Lowry convinced the parties to "compromise" the Word, worship of God, and Christian principles in any way for the sake of peace, tranquility, and "unity," we could not extend any praise.
|September 18 2007, 9:26 PM |
I thought that he was brought to LU because of its own internal problems. I never believed the Flatt reason for suddenly leaving and being hired by a board member.
Steve was a "founding" father of the Jubilee Corporation and many of the discorders still control LU. Their theology is postmodern and many of the professors have been aligned with Shelly and Otter Creek.
One of the first statements by Dr. Lowry was the question of whether the university should remain aligned with "the churches of Christ." Not any "mediatiable option" unless you intend to flat out steal it and divert it.
His group was brought in to mediate the Madison problem but gave up because there was no unity in the eldership. When hired I think that "mediation" is always going to slant toward the Eldership. Taking surveys is one of the very bad ways of slanting the congregation by the way the questions are asked.
As noted, in a corporation there is one way: My way or the High Way. However, when the division is over clear violations of the Word by the peer-selected elders there can be no mediation.
The "theology" coming out of the Bible department does not give you much hope but it all depends on what direction the Board of Directors with responsibility to the founders and builders are heading.
In the long run the solution for churches of Christ is a Restoration Movement to restore the "body" to its members with no command authority or "programs" over which to conflict.
|September 21 2007, 10:06 AM |
Can you provide the text/documentation of Dr. Lowry questioning whether or not the university should remain aligned with the Church of Christ? I'd be interested in reading about that.
|September 21 2007, 12:48 PM |
Ken, I would be interested in that as well.
I have been in Randy's (California - pre-DLU days)house and spent considerable time talking with him.
I would be incredibly surprised that he would raise this issue. I realize that he would certainly be considered more "liberal" than most on this site, but I understand the love that he has for Churches of Christ. (Of cours, I would not have guessed that the Elders at Oak Hills would sanction instruments in Sunday worship services either.)
|September 21 2007, 12:52 PM |
I can't remember the source but it probably was from the paper announcing his purpose at Lipscomb. Steve Flatt pronounced in one of the Nashville papers that NOT using instruments was "just our tradition." Lowry uses heritage and tradition which is the usual false teaching. The church of Christ never used musical instruments in any of the Protestant groups. Nor did the Catholic church ever engage in "congregational singing with instrumental accompaniment." The organ was the work product of secular people who placed organs for use by composers and for musical performances NOT during the assembly time. The organ did preludes, interludes and intermissions: one historian notes that it set the pitch who did the chanting originally of the Biblical Text as directly commanded.
Many of those with doctorates out of places like LU still do not know the role of music in the Bible as the mark of Satan, warriors, exorcists during animal sacrifices, prostitutes and Sodomites who did the "processionals" Isaiah 30 condemns. Isaiah further shows that when you hear the wind, strings and percussion instruments it is a SIGN that God is driving them into Topheth, once Solomon's music grove which identifies hell.
By using words like heritage and tradition the clear implication is that the Church of Christ invented the concept of congregational singing. Some say that it was because we were mean, ugly, ignorant, southern red necks. Of course the Lucados, Seidmans, Jones, Atchleys, Rushes and Hendersons STILL lie about every Biblical passage and use raca words like ANTI-instrumentalists
to mark those who go beyond "preference" and insist that using "machined for doing hard work" in the ekklesia or school of the Bible IS a sin. There is an increase of those saying that God COMMANDS INSTRUMENTAL PRAISE and we would be disobedient if we DID NOT add instruments. This is fed to dupes by the NACC people such as David Faust. That demands that the ANTI-instrumentalists
are proper targets of destruction.
Here is what I copied--I believe--from the LU publication. I will try to find it.
Lowry said he will aim to heighten the university's prestige and said Lipscomb will have to decide whether it wants "to remain a fairly regional school" or to "move beyond that, looking at a broader constituency of students from throughout the country."
He said that he wants to grow the school's undergraduate body--currently about 2,500 to 3,500.
"As I understand, currently about 70 percent of the students are from our church constituency, and about 30 percent of the students are from other [non-Church of Christ] faith traditions.
"My sense is that those who do not share our particular heritage can still find an outstanding educational opportunity at Lipscomb, and we want them, if they're interested in a faith-based education, to consider us."
He said he and the board very much intend to keep Lipscomb a religious school.
Being semi-paranoid from all of the previous coded speech I worry about seeking a BROADER CONSTITUENCY. I don't see how you can attract a broader religious constituency without broadening the faculty which is already so broad that it demonstrates no church of Christ depth.
My interpretation may be biased on the LU history and bringing in a Conflict Resolver which conflict I believe is internal with the faithful faculty mortally afraid to defend the church of Christ. Even if every thing could be proven wrong, there is no redemption for those who--as they boasted at ACU--to remove the conservatives: meaning "let's steal us a university." A LU Doctor told me 25 years ago that they were in the process of removing the conservatives and I believe they have largely fulfilled their Driven Purpose.
re: Dr. Lowry
|September 21 2007, 1:52 PM |
Seems to me, most church disagreements involve matters of opinion concerning METHODS of doing things. Does your opinion that churches that are "mediated" give up some truth in the word of God apply to matters of opinion? Perhaps it would be better to state that clearer. It seems you made a very generalized and stereotypical statement.
Of course, we tend to think our opinions ARE the biblical ones, and the other guy's opinions are "unauthorized innovations." Most of the disagreements are over the "silent" matters. How do we know who is right and who is compromising the word of God? Is it, perhaps, that the person who fails to compromise to my "belief" (opinion) also compromises the word of God?
Additionally, because something is new, different, or apart from status quo, does that make it unbiblical, unauthorized, or otherwise wrong?
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: re: Dr. Lowry
|September 22 2007, 10:44 AM |
I never said all churches that are "mediated" compromise the Word or worship or Christian principles. I raised the question that, since mediation in the secular world almost invariably involves some kind of compromise, then using the secular technique of "mediation" to resolve church disputes would very likely also involve compromise. Church disputes often involve much more than time of Sunday services and whether the Lord's Supper is served before or after the sermon (definitely matters of opinion).
Church disputes often involve people desiring, nay, demanding, that their personal preferences be implemented and forced upon the general congregation, preferences that may violate New Testament principles. The classic example is instrumental music. Some wish to fall back on Old Testament principles and bring in instruments, which flies in the face of New Testament commands to sing and make melody with our hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The New Testament gives a command about the music we are to use and does not authorize anything there beyond vocal music. Yet people only bring discord and disharmony to churches of Christ by railroading IM into their congregations. There have been plenty of discussions about that.
Another issue is that some wish to "expand" the Lord's Supper into a fellowship meal with more than bread and fruit of the vine and thus create a festival or carnival atmosphere about it. The New Testament warns about taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner as if the purpose is self-gratification to fill one's belly (1 Cor. 11:20-30).
If churches based what was implemented in worship on the standards set forth in the New Testament and were completely satisfied with that without looking to try this fad and that gimmick, which could possibly violate the New Testament, there would be no need for "church mediation."
People say, "Who determines what is acceptable and proper? Who determines what is a matter of opinion vs. a matter of New Testament command?" Compare all things to the New Testament. If what you wish to implement does not add to, take from, or otherwise violate an existing New Testament command or principle, then there is probably nothing wrong with it.
People always bring up the subject of kitchens, pews, podiums, rest rooms, air conditioners, etc., when talking about "authorized" and "unauthorized" practices. Such people cannot or will not recognize the difference between matters of faith based on New Testament mandates, which are not governed by human opinion, and trivial matters, which are subject to human opinion. Adding instrumental music ADDS to what God has already imposed about vocal-only church music. It violates the New Testament. Converting the Lord's Supper into a festival with pizza, chops, and steak violates the manner imposed by the New Testament for observing the Lord's Supper. Whether the church has round or square lamp shades in the vestibule is a matter of opinion that does not violate any New Testament principle; lamp shades are not matters of faith. Having song books or projecting the words to hymns on an overhead projector are matters of opinion that do not violate any New Testament principle; song books and projectors are not matters of faith.
Again, if churches truly let the New Testament be their guide, "mediation" with its potential for compromising New Testament principles could virtually be eliminated.
Re: re: Dr. Lowry
|September 22 2007, 1:25 PM |
I do know from attending several seminars on managing church conflicts at the Pepperdine Campus and being personally involved in helping with some church disputes that most church disputes were over "worship styles." Specifically, the inclusion of contemporary praise songs with old time hymns. So these were not areas were "doctrinal" divisions were present, but only preferences in worship style.
Re: re: re: Dr. Lowry
|September 24 2007, 12:19 PM |
True, you did not say arbitration ALWAYS involves compromising the word of God. But, your argument against using arbitrators seemed to be that it is often or "may" involve that, therefore it shouldn't be done.
I would only ask, is it acceptable to use an arbitor to help parties come to an agreement, even compromise, concerning matters of opinion? Disagreements are often over "matters of faith" but in my experience, they are MORE often over "matters of opinion" which are often CALLED matters of faith (some include powerpoint/projectors per your example).
Or, do we use the "slippery slope" arguement that because an arbitrator MAY ask someone to compromise truth, then we should not use them at all?
Disputes over worship styles only?
|September 22 2007, 5:57 PM |
I agree thaton the surfacemost church disputes [are] over worship styles. It appears that way, doesnt it? However, please note the following:
I would like to stress the expression on the surface. Heres the reason why: When we carefully study the agenda of the agents of change, it becomes apparent that change in worship style is their main thrust. This is clearly learned from Rick Warrens church growth manual and from whose emphasis is to do something different in worship programming in order to appeal to and attract and reach the unchurched.
Rick Warrens scheme may spark little or no controversy in the denominational world in regard to the respective denominations set of doctrinal beliefs and teachings. For example, if a denomination teaches that baptism is not essential in receiving forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ, such doctrine is unaffected. Or, if a denomination emphasizes the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in the Christian [or in the unconverted, for that matter] and diminishes or deemphasizes Christs redeeming power, such established doctrine of that denomination is unaffected.
In our brotherhood, when the agents of change market Rick Warrens scheme for church growth by implementing changes in worship styles, the adverse effects are much more severe. Much of the change in worship styles in congregations that have succumbed to this agendum actually undermines the churchs beliefs and teachings. [I know that you are aware of these doctrinal changes being promoted by the church growth proponents.]
The crux of the matter is that underneath the changes in worship style that certain congregations have incorporated in their worship programs, there are undeniable changes in worship content and in the churchs beliefs and teachings that, to the best of our knowledge, are acquired and delivered from the New Testament. This is further evidenced when the congregation now allows the participation of inanimate and lifeless musical instruments in the worship of the living saints.
Change in worship styleyes. Change in worship contentyes. Change in the churchs beliefs and teachings [e.g., the restructuring of the Lords church, the redesign of the purpose of baptism, that Gods grace covers the Christians unfaithfulness, etc.]yes.
Lowrys mediation programs may work well in the cultural or political arena, but not necessarily in the church whose stronghold rests upon the truth of God being uncompromised. If baptism is not an essential in the conversion process, or if instrumental music is only a matter of preference, then, Lowrys mediation program way work well for that particular church. But not
where the majority of the churchs membership is not willing to accept compromising solutions.
Lipscombs Show and Tell.
|June 18 2008, 11:41 PM |
Rebuttal time in red.
|June 20 2008, 2:02 PM |
Contemplative Prayer: new age occultism.
|June 20 2008, 7:54 PM |
Many of the once-Christian universities have long been teaching and promoting Contemplative Prayer which is like Transendential Mediation a New Age OCCULTISM. I have posted some notes at this link:
This will show that people claiming to be of the Church of Christ have long been into something like WICCA or Neopaganism.
Lipscomb Summer Celebration 2008: featuring the most virulent change agents along with Randy Harris, Gary Holloway and Rhonda Lowry:
Growing Deeper: a look at contemplative spiritual. That is the common grade of the new age OCULTISM.
This has been the PUSH at Pepperdine, ACU and Lipscomb for several years. This is what Lynn Anderson has been describing foryears in terms of WICCA.
This paper will link you to the meaning of Contemplative Spirituality and some of the promoters including the Zoe Group which makes the BIG LIST along with Max Lucado.
We have no idea what these people will present but the background of Randy Harris and Gary Holloway is pretty clear. Maybe they intend to repent for being contentless and looking for Jesus in all of the wrong places?
Musical Worship Teams Jesus called HYPOCRITES and John called SORCERERS
|July 3 2008, 11:28 AM |
Totally ignorant or totally unaware, the rise of the MUSICAL MINISTERS and their style has always been called SORCERY and defines the "laded burden" or spiritual anxiety through religious "burden singing" as totally Paleo-christian and destructive to the mind and emotions and probably the soul. Connect this to the "testing" of the OCCULT is symptomatic of ancient PAGANISM and not complimentary of the "scholarship."
The twice-daily PRACTICE of connecting "praise singing" to the worship of a Spirit God is defined by all known evidence as a form of sorcery or witchcraft. The grouping and affirmation of the massed multitudes will alter your brain even if you scoff.
Consistent with the Bible and good mental health, believers are taught to seek God (Paul's only worship concept) by giving heed to His Word. The very style of musical performance always points to "enchantment" and modern medicine knows that it works by inducing a drug high: endorphins which induce the impulse of FIGHT, FLIGHT and SEXUAL feelings. That is why all churches having "installed" a college-trained "worship minister" cause many of the owners to flee.
Click to understand why "worship music" is people being drug pushers.
Click for Part Two
Scientific American Music and the Brain
And when a symphony's denouement gives delicious chills, the same kinds of pleasure centers of the brain light up as they do when eating chocolate, having sex or taking cocaine.
Both Jesus and Paul use terms for the laded burden, self-pleasure and rest which prove that they knew that all kinds of musical performance was called sorcery and explicitely linked to "reproaching Jesus" which meant to "expose His private parts" as well as other sexual and perverted images.
Therein lies an intriguing biological mystery: Why is music--universally beloved and uniquely powerful in its ability to wring emotions--so pervasive and important to us? Could its emergence have enhanced human survival somehow, such as by aiding courtship, as Geoffrey F. Miller of the University of New Mexico has proposed? Or did it originally help us by promoting social cohesion in groups that had grown too large for grooming, as suggested by Robin M. Dunbar of the University of Liverpool? On the other hand, to use the words of Harvard University's Steven Pinker, is music just "auditory cheesecake"--a happy accident of evolution that happens to tickle the brain's fancy?
The sexual and homosexual connection is absolute in all of recorded history: the "singers were happy to be the harem of the gods" and the performers are seeking their OWN pleasure as they USE you and thereby bleed off ALL of the worship for themsleves.
It is clear that different parts of the brain process music and speech: that is why the direct command is to SPEAK even when we "sing that which is written" in the style of the time. SPEAK is defined--for any student--as the opposite to poetry and music. Myth Mongers were allowed to write songs and poems because they never wrote the truth. That is why "singers" are USED to silence the Words of Christ. For that reason John called rhetoric, singing and instrument players SORCERERS consistent witl all Greek texts.
It has been the sectarianizing patternism for churches which engage in the Church Growth Cult and build mega churches to fall into some kind of primal madness and quite willingly lie about all of the Bible and known literature to IMPOSE first musical worship teams and then instruments knowing that they were deliberately sowing discord having "counted the losses as acceptable."
Don't be put off by the term "instrumental" because the Acappella (hides a cappella) praise team is a defacto MUSICAL instrument but using organic instruments. If you listen you will hear the pseudo-instruments and even the "animal" sounds which in the pre-illiterate period was a sign of demonism.
See how they sang! That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David. Musical sounds gratified their auricular sensibilities, and they chanted to the viol. Here is the lust of the ear... What a description this of a people that lived and wrought entirely for the senses! They were practical materialists. They had no spiritual vision, sensibilities, or experience. Their imperishable souls were submerged in the deep flowing sea of mere animal pleasures... There is, indeed, a reference to intellectual effort, for it is said, they invented to themselves instruments of music. Carnal indulgencies has ever been and is now as much, if not more than ever, the great employer of mans inventive faculties. (Pulpit Commentary, The Book of Amos, p. 131).
Naturally, the most crowd--attracting speakers have been instrumental in trying to "restructure" what they call the ANTI-instrumental Church of Christ into the use of instruments. The ploy of calling congregational singing "Acappella" and using performance singers whose "style" is instrumental paves the way for adding instruments.
Not surprisingly, the curse of the Monarchy now being used to say that God commands musical worship, was LIKE THE NATIONS because that is what God abandoned Israel to.
Click for the Old Style Babylon worship
"According to the system which Nimrod was the grand instrument in introducing,
men were led to believe
that a real spiritual change of heart was unnecessary,
and that so far as change was needful,
they could be regenerated by mere external means.
"Looking at the subject in the light of the Bacchanalian orgies (Read Ephesus and Corinth),
which, as the reader has seen, commemorated the history of Nimrod, it is evident that
he led mankind to seek their chief good in sensual enjoyment,
and showed them how they might enjoy the pleasures of sin, without any fear of the wrath of a holy God. (Voodoo, Rock, Boogie Woogie becomes Contemporary Christian Music)
"In his various expeditions he was always accompanied by troops of women; and by music and song, and games (ritual drama) and revelries, and everything that could please the natural hearts,
he commended himself to the good graces of mankind." (Hislop, Alexander, The Two Babylons, p. 55, Loizeaux Brothers)
The "worship ministers" actually CLAIM to be God by claiming to be able to LEAD you into the presence of God and therefore replace Jesus Christ. They ARE standing in the "holy places" which in the Temple type of the Church of Christ would have gotten them instantly executed. They DO produce abominations such as believing that DELIBERATELY LYING about the Word of God is ACCEPTABLE because they "gotta save more souls." Assuredly this is massively legalism.
Of course, if you have listened to some of these speakers they all have a highly-honed style of rhetoric which says, "Look at me: ain't I cute? Listen to me? ain't I entertaining your pleasure centers?" So, one observer noted that such gatherings sell SNAKE OIL but I wouldn't buy any CD's or BOOK any performances. Jesus called the Scribes and Pharasiees as HYPOCRITES by pointing to Isaiah and Ezekiel who identified "slick speakers, singers and instrument players" and implicated the SEXUAL component.