| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 318 Registered: 7-2004  |
Preaching the Gospel of the Bible to a few people would be far better the preaching a gospel from somewhere else to a stadium full of people. If we think that the words of men are a better means of helping people meet God than God's Own Word is, that is not only arrogance but a diminishing of the inspiration of Scripture. His Word is where we find Him. I don't know RW or his church, and my comments are not directed at him. I have read through enough of PDL standing in the bookstore to know that I am not comfortable with the use of text snippets (not always in context) selected from whatever version makes his point (without regard to the accuracy of the translation. Even IF every time RW does this, it is done in support of a true idea the practice still sets his readers up for being easily deceived by similar practices. My comments about seeker-oriented services are based on the ones that I have visited. IMO they were self-help seminars masquerading as gospel by throwing in a few Scriptural quotes here and there. Jesus didn't take polls to find out what would be popular. The power of His message wasn't that it was popular, or what people wanted to hear. It was powerful because it revealed Who God was. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1106 Registered: 7-2003  |
You're right, Tisha. The first chapter is very straight up that life is about God. Even says we exist because God wills it. Chapter one excerpt can be found here... http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0310205719/ref=sib_dp_pop_ex/104-2785701-7692709?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00M#reader-page | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2688 Registered: 12-2003  |
Actually, Tisha and Ric-b, I think you both make excellent points that dove-tail. At this point I don't see service style as necessarily indicative of whether or not Jesus is being honored. What really matters is whether or not the people leading worship and preaching are surrendered to Jesus and willing for His words to come out of their mouths. If they are, Jesus Himself will speak through them to each hearer. Even if they're not surrendered, the Holy Spirit can still use words spoken from a self-aggrandizing person for His own purposes. We have some friends (they are actually former Jehovah's Witnesses--it's interesting how their story could be ours and vice versa, with the exception of small details--that says something about the spirit behind the two churches, I believe--but I digress!) who have attended a very large seeker-sensitive evangelical church for three of four years. Services are well-planned and run with show-like precision, but the culminating point is the sermons--of course. In doing some of their own research on various subjects, our friends happened upon a collection of sermons by some well-known, contemporary Christian preacher online, and they discovered that their pastor was consistently delivering these sermons they found--even using the personal illustrations and speaking about them in first person. There, it seems to me, is a pastor who lacks conviction and probably has parishioners who have trouble being convicted of God's will while sitting in church. Not that God couldn't use those second-hand sermons for His glory; He absolutely can and no doubt does. But a pastor who is not personally grappling with God's word will have limited power or insight. Conversely, a pastor who IS grappling with God's word and is personally committed to speaking forth God's own words through the empowering of the Holy Spirit will have power and will draw people to Jesus even if he preaches a "simple" sermon. As Rick said, Jesus' teaching was powerful "because it revealed Who God was." All of us begin with the milk of God's word, and God persistently moves all of us toward the meat of His word. He knows where we need to be and when we need to be there in order to grow in the ways only He in His sovereignty knows we need to grow. (Only God knew that "the times [had] reached their fulfillment" for Richard to face directly his aversion to eating meat and to surrender it to God, for example! See post on another thread...) Surrender to the sovereign mercy and authority of God is the bottom line for any Christ-follower. He will make us aware if we need to move to a church where God's word is honored as it should be, etc. Sometimes He moves people into certain churches just temporarily because He knows they will find something there they truly need, and then He moves them on. The real secret, I believe, is exactly Jesus' example: if a person claiming to deliver God's words is truly honoring God and His word, God will be revealed. Colleen | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 143 Registered: 3-2005 |
I used to think that though, as an SDA, I was in the minority that was OK because at least we had the truth. But now I know that there are MANY Christians that know the real truth - not the SDA "truth". I know that stadiums can be full of those seeking the real truth. I would never advocate preaching a false gospel to a stadium full of people. But I see nothing wrong using polls and other marketing tools to get the attention of those to whom we want to preach about Jesus Christ. With the right advertising we CAN have stadiums full of people who are searching for answers and are open to recieving the words of the Bible and accepting the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Why not use these means to reach out to millions? I'm afraid that some would have us ignore any "commercial" type of attention-getting rather than appear too "self-seeking", "modern" or "of the world". But I think that we need to reach people with things they recognize and are used to. That does not make it necessarily a bad thing. It can still be done in a way that is consistant with Biblical teaching. Times change and the tent revival doesn't work like it used to, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's just outdated. Now people watch TV and use the Internet, so why not use those tools to reach them? Why not use their interest in finding community to lead them to Christ through Chistian Fellowship where they can learn about Christ and how to live a Christ-centered life? Why not use their interest in building stronger marriages to teach the Biblical model of marriage, and thus show them Jesus Christ's saving Grace. Why not use lively worship music to gain the attention of and teach our youth about Christ We do need to get their attention if we want to reach them. I know the Holy Spirit is the only one that can really reach a person's heart. But I don't think that means we are not to help bring the people an opportunity to hear when we can. I think that there are many ways to reach out to the unbeliever and draw them to Christ. I don't throw out any method just because non-Christians and wordly people use it. As long as it is Biblical it has potential. I will make my judgement about it on whether it uplifts Christ and Christ alone. We want the masses to hear about the Gospel, and yet we question the motives of these large Churches. Being large doesn't make them bad. Of course, we have to be discerning. We need to check everything against the Bible. And there are plenty of Churches, both large and small, that do not uphold the Bible and Christ alone. But size shouldn't be a factor against a Church. Don't we want everyone to have the opportunity to accept Christ? Wouldn't it be great to see all our Christian Churches growing? The large churches use the small group and midweek services to go into depth about Theology and Bible teaching. They intend for the Sunday service (seeker-service) to attract people and get them interested for more, and then to get them involved in small groups where they can study the Bible and grow in Christ with the support of other Christians. In theory, this is great, and often works well. But I know it doesn't always work, and there can be problems, as there can be in any type of Church structure. All in all, I believe that there are many valid ways to reach out and share the Good News. I believe God uses all these ways if they are truely Christ-centered. And, any good thing can be corrupted if Christ is left out! "It's not about me - It's all about HIM"! -tisha | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 319 Registered: 7-2004 |
I haven't spoken against worship styles. I have spoken against worship content. I have seen the list of small group studies at seeker-friendly churches around us. Almost none of the small groups are studying Scripture either. Instead it is more Christian "self-help" books. I'm not suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with Christian marriage seminars, and Christian finance seminars, and Christian child raising seminars, and Christian basketball seminars and the hundreds of other that might be possible. But none of these are the Gospel. And I have seen first-hand how much these kind of studies can dominate the church and small group meetings of a seeker-friendly group. It isn't about the number of people, it is about the message. If the message of the Cross is watered down so that it will appeal to more people, we aren't doing God any favors! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 894 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tisha, I don't disagree with a lot of points that you make. My whole focus of this discussion is not that PDL is bad or heretical in itself, and it might have led to many good things that you have observed. But when you get past that first chapter of PDL where it says it's not about you etc. well then go and count the number of references to you in the book. This fact has been pointed out by many observers, that in reality it does turn the focus back on you. I just disagree with using modern psychological techniques which are manipulative, and worldly marketing methods which none of the apostles used. Read 1 Cor. 1 and 2 carefully, and then compare it to some of the methods being used. My suspicion of Warren is based on knowing that he has been highly influenced by Robert Schuller, and even though he denies Schuller's theology as unbiblical, you still see Warren doing exactly the same thing that Schuller did to build a church. Schuller took polls to find out what people wanted to hear at church, rather than telling people what they needed to hear. When Warren was asked to do a column for Ladies Home Journal (Tisha, that link that I posted is way back in the archives of this thread, where this article is reviewed.) what did he do? Did he point his readers to Jesus being the only answer to life's problems? No, he preached Schuller's message of self-esteem. He told a general audience that God loves them unconditionally (which contradicts Rom. 9 directly), and he told them that they neede to love themselves more. Now I don't have a problem in a secular magazine throwing in some psychology and talking about a better self image. That is fine in itself and not wrong? But does it not bother you that he didn't even mention the name of Jesus? That article was all about you, and platitudes in general about God, but it wasn't what you expect to hear from a true minister of the gospel of Jesus. The fruit of this movement has been one that does emphasize topical positive messages, rather than line by line expositional teaching. Also, Tisha, you mention that preaching the Bible ends up in empty pews. I don't but that at all. John MacArthur has one of the largest churches in Calif. which has been built on pure expository preaching, and he has been a voice to sound the alarm about the trend to watered down Christianity in the name of being more seeker-sensitive. Also this popular evangelical movement is very ecumenical towards the false religion of Catholicism. All I am saying is that we need to guard against the religion of easy-believism and not compromise with the spirit of this age. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 320 Registered: 7-2004 |
Tisha-- I do agree with several of your points. I'm not trying to suggest the "big" is bad. But I am suggesting that the number of members does not validate the message or methods. I do not believe that we can determine the success of church's activities by the number of people in the pews. I also think we need to distinguish between using modern marketing to understand and promote an event or a church and using it to determine the message or content. God has made the message and content quite clear. Having a church that is reaching and gathering seekers may be either a good or a bad thing. If the seeker-friendly church isn't bringing people to the Gospel of Jesus then it may be worse than no church at all because it could be drawing people away from a place where the true Gospel is being proclaimed. We all know just how hard it is to be broken free from a false gospel. The gospel of self-esteem and self-improvement is just as false as the gospel of law and works. And just as dangerous and binding. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 321 Registered: 7-2004 |
Stan-- I'm not sure that God's unconditional love is contrary to Romans 9 (v16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy). God's mercy is not conditional based on our qualities. I might argue that it is His universal application of mercy that must be questioned (v18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires). This is a hard concept to accept. I still struggle trying to grasp such an idea. But I can't deny what is plainly said either. | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 145 Registered: 3-2005 |
I don't believe I said that preaching the Bible ends up with empty pews. I don't think that a small Church is bad either. I just was making a point that drawing lots of people in to hear the Gospel is a good thing - better than just preaching where no one knows you're there. And I'm not against small Churches - I belong to one and prefer them for the intimacy. But that doesn't fit everyone. My main complaint comes from a blanket rejection of using modern means to reach people. I have heard too many people putting down polls and marketing techniques, and psychology without looking at the results of using these methods. I believe they are only wrong when used in non-Biblical ways - which is true of any type of method used. When the Bible is preached from the pulpit it is POWERFUL and will fill the pews. But you do have to get a person there in the first place. I know the Holy Spirit can use any method - or none at all - to give a person the opportunity to accept Christ. I have no agenda or favorite "method" in all this. I just get worried when there seems to be such antagonism against a certain type of outreach which has brought many to Christ, just because it uses modern means. I heard enough of that kind of judgemental attitude in the SDA Church. I guess it makes me overly sensitive! When I was hurting and doubting God's plan for my life - even wondering IF there was a God at all - it was a Christian "self-help" group that pointed me to the wonderful understanding that God is real and I can call on Him, trust Him and have Salvation through accepting the free gift of Grace. I don't know if I would ever have found that if I hadn't been reached where I was - in the depths of despair. I hate to hear people call this "pop psychology" or "self-centered" evangelism. Jesus met people's need right where they were. He then showed them a better way. So, if a Church is seeker-sensitive and doesn't move those seekers on to having a saving faith in Jesus Christ - then yes, that is a problem. But for those that do - this is ONE way that works and should be used, obviously keeping it Biblical. Our Church used PDL to grow in Christ. We have a very expositional type of preaching and our study group use the Bible - going verse by verse, in context. We are a real Bible-only, praying group. But PDL helped us to put into action what we learn each week. It is not just a "feel-good" type of program if used correctly. Every lesson encourages us to be more Christ-like. It encourages us to let God use us for HIS Glory. I don't see this as compromising our Christianity. I see it as strengthening it. Sometimes, a topical message can help one put into practice things that are head knowledge only. We need both head and heart to be well-rounded Christians. Just knowing the Bible intimately isn't enough to reach others if we don't put it into action by living fully as a Christian witness. By making it "easy" to believe doesn't necessarily make it wrong. One of the things I say over and over since leaving SDAism is that it is "SO SIMPLE"! Now this may sound trite to you. But by this I mean - ALL I have to do is BELIEVE and ACCEPT JESUS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION! No works, no deep theological study, no understanding all those timelines, prophecies, no understanding of Arminianism, Calvinism, Dispensationism, and the other isms, etc. ALL I NEED IS JESUS. Now that doesn't mean that I don't want to study the Bible, or that one shouldn't know what the Bible says about other things, but my Salvation doesn't depend on it. Making it easy to find Jesus Christ shouldn't be something looked down on. It shouldn't be hard! But what comes next is also important for a Christian. So, again, how something is used, and the fruit that comes as a result is what matters. I try to keep an open mind when looking at how God can reach people. He never ceases to amaze me! He is so great. I don't want put limits on what I think He can do. This is all just my humble opinion, and letting you know my "hot" buttons! I hope you all take this as positive Christian dialogue and not as pointing fingers or fault-finding. We each have our passions - and I guess this is one of mine! Now I will shut up! -tisha | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1107 Registered: 7-2003 |
I keep hoping to get out of this argument, but I don't know how to just turn the computer off, it would seem. Stan, I know you think God doesn't love people unconditionally, as you've said it several times and refer to Romans 9, but then what do you do with John 3:16...for God so loved the world? Luke 11:42? What about 1 Corin 13, which talks about love. Doesn't love cover sins? Are you really saying people should teach God only loves some? Is that really the consistent message you read in scripture? And if God only loves conditionally, does that mean that we are only to love people conditionally too (God loves some and hates some)? Can we actually Biblically hate some? Doesn't it also say we can't love God and hate our neighbor? Is "neighbor" ONLY defined as Christians...and those we deem Christians...are SDAs right to only love other SDAs? And how do we know who God hates, so it's okay for us to hate as well? My Bible also says that God does not want anyone to perish....so how does that fit in with God's conditional love? I know a lot of (what I consider) very orthodox pastors that say God loves people unconditionally, and if that's the measure of orthodoxy, then there are probably fewer people than ever that could be considered orthodox. Do you see my issue with saying God does not love everyone unconditionally? (using 1st person again) Someone could easily say, we'll it's impossible then that he could love me (isn't that what we hear from many former SDAs...they could never be perfect so why try at all...do we really want SDAs who can't reach perfectionism to not love themselves or to think God can't/doesn't love them?). On that same stream, are people really better if they think themselves worthless and inferior? Is that really a good witness of Christ in my life? Yet that is the message our society screams at us...too fat, too thin, not the right clothes, not the right hairstyle, blah blah blah. Isn't it okay to love ourselves as we are, even with my newly emmerging (or is it immerging?) gray hair!? How can loving our neighbor as ourselves have any meaning if we think we're generally pond scum? Isn't that the message we're battling in todays culture? Are you okay with that message and conclusion as being "orthodox"? And what would you prefer he say to be "Biblically accurate" in your view? I tell my kids that God is love, but maybe I'm wrong?? For God so loved part of the world, some of the world? That's not how it's written. Even if there are some God would never "draw" to himself, that is neither your nor my job to discern and label and therefore treat differently. I presume we assume that any are legitimate candidates for God's gospel and salvation as HE works. If I really stretched your view, perhaps you agree with those who carry signs that "God hates xxxx"? If I had an abortion, do I become unlovable (and no, I haven't!) At what point do we really tell someone God doesn't/couldn't love them? I really don't understand your position on that one at all. I wonder if the methods Paul and other apostles used in their day were considered "modern"? They did church in houses...so is it wrong to have worship centers? They didn't drive cars...have electricity...how far do we take that? I am continually perplexed by your reference to the Ladies Home Journal article. Do you have some personal knowledge about what the editors told RW he could write about? Do you know personally that he was told he could present the gospel and they would print it unedited? Do you know whether he wrote one thing, and they didn't edited it out? Do you know he had no interest in the gospel? Do you know if they asked him to write to a specific topic? If not, then how can you keep condemning him for that article? I've said it before, I know Focus on the Family does their family minute. It is not a presentation of the gospel, but does that make it wrong? Are pastors only allowed to write if they are presenting the gospel and nothing else? We are still humans living in a human world. If Christians leave every forum except preaching the gospel, then some of us are going to be in quite a quandry. Knowing about the life, death and resurrection of Christ does not help me know how to deal with my DD child. I would RATHER hear about it from a Christian psychological view. I absolutely agree with you against using manipulation techniques, but Dayspring uses "worldly" marketing techniques, as does every other Christian organization I know. Even John MacArthur has his own study Bible that is sold in stores, catalogs, internet with his remarks in the footnotes. They all use some sort of medium, be it tv, radio, direct mail, internet...those are all modern mediums. Avoid easy-believism, sounds good, but teaching people to serve others as they are serving the body of Christ is not "easy-believism". And all the works in the world don't make you a Christian. After chapter 1, RW assumes a Christian. I've listened to the video, he says so specifically. He offers the opportunity to accept Christ, and in the small group, we were to offer the opportunity for any who might not know him, at that point. We actually had people who prayed during that first small group meeting...I heard their testimonies. Time to go for today, but if saying that God loves unconditionally is heresy, I don't know that I know a single orthodox pastor by that definition. | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 146 Registered: 3-2005 |
There were several posts added while I was working on mine. I think we are all in agreement in the basics! And it would be pretty boring if we never disagreed, wouldn't it? So, thanks for the great discussion and stretching my mind a bit! -tisha | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 895 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi Tisha, Amen! to your last post!! I agree that this discussion is healthy, and makes us think. Speaking of making me think. Melissa and Ric_b brought up some very interesting challenges to a statement I made above about God's unconditional love for everyone. I do believe this is an important point and I would appreciate anyone's input on this question. I don't claim to have all the answers either, and I am just trying to understand some very important passages of scripture. Before I ask some important questions on that topic, I would like to address your point Melissa about that Ladies Home Journal article. I don't have inside info on whether the editors censored Mr. Warren and told him not to preach Jesus, or mention His Name. But, I am not sure that would make any difference to the argument I am making. Let's assume that Warren was told not to use the name of Jesus, but that he would have permission to preach self esteem. Then why would a minister of the gospel do that? The argument about James Dobson's family minute is not the same argument, as that is only a minute. But Warren was given a whole column to develop his self esteem message. Let's look at a Biblical example in Acts 5:17 ff The apostles were arrested for preaching the name of Jesus and thrown in prison and persecuted. They escaped jail, and were found preaching in the public square and proclaiming Jesus boldly as the only way to salvation. In Acts 5:28 they said "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name" Verse 29 Peter...replied "We must obey God rather than men!" See, the apostles were not even afraid to go to jail or be killed for preaching Jesus, it just seems like the least that Mr. Warren could do is to decline to write the article. Because why even put your name (remember he has been called America's pastor) on an article which makes everyone feel good, and that their major problem is that they don't love themselves enough. I am trying to think of the reference right now, but Paul said "woe is me if I preach not the gospel". I can't judge Mr Warren's heart on this, but the appearance is highly suspect. If you disagree with me on this, then I am open for you to tell me why. Now, back to the question about God's unconditional love for everyone or the whole world. This is not an easy question, but I would like to ask a few questions of Ric and Melissa or anyone else who challenged me on this. How do you interpret Romans 9:11 ff "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Verse 13...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" Now, where is the unconditional love for Esau? Or does God not really mean he hated? Now to Romans 9: 19 "One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us?...verse 20 "But who are you, O man to talk back to God? 'shall what is formed say to Him who formed it...verse 21 "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? verse 22 "What if God, CHOOSING to show his wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the OBJECTS OF HIS WRATH--prepared for destruction? (Again, where is this unconditional love here?) V.23 "What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory..." These are tough passages, but it would be hard to just pass over these passages and go to passages like John 3:16. I will say that God loves everyone unconditionally through common grace. The rain and other blessings fall on the just and the unjust. God does answer the prayers of unbelievers through common grace. But you can go through many passages in the Psalms that also show that God's love is not unconditional, and his hatred for evildoers is just unmistakable. But to say that God loves the 9/11 hijackers just as much as he loves those He has redeemed by his blood is not Biblical. One evangelist did tell Larry King that this was true. The Bible makes it abundantly clear, that we are alienated from God apart from Christ. God has made abundant provision, and has set up conditions for us to be reconciled to God by His wondrous mercy and grace. Stan | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 311 Registered: 1-2003  |
Melissa, <quote> "I keep hoping to get out of this argument, but I don't know how to just turn the computer off, it would seem. "  I had to smile at that comment and then the "book" that followed. I for one appreciated your comments and to keep myself from getting drawn back in I'll say good night to everyone. <grin> Stan, I've started a message back to you several times and then erased it. Let me say quickly I know your heart is not to hurt others and I'll not say more until I get to talk to you in person. God bless you all and to sleep I go. Melissa the computer is being turned off. <smile> In Christ, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 897 Registered: 3-2005 |
And may God abundantly bless you Richard in every way. You are right, I don't mean any harm. I like that old hymn that says "If I have wounded any soul today...Dear Lord forgive, and I mean that from my heart to anyone who may be offended by what I have said. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2693 Registered: 12-2003 |
Romans 9 is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. As Gary said yesterday while he was preaching on part of it, we can't explain His sovereign election, yet we know it is a Biblical truth. We have to hold it in tension (unresolved from our viewpoint) with the truth of our personal responsibility. Likewise, we have to hold it in tension with the statements (such as John 3:16) which clearly say God loved the whole world. The verse that says, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" is a statement NOT of emotion but of CHOICE. For reasons we cannot and are not intended to know, God chose Jacob to be Israel, not Esau. Did God hate Jesus when He turned away from him during the three dark hours Jesus hung on the cross before he died? Yet God was deliberately absent from Jesus. Jesus had become a curse, and God had to remove Himself from communion with the embodied Curse. God's turning away from Jesus was a positional, not an emotioinal separation. We can understand His "hating" Esau in a similar way. Even so, God redeemed the legacy of Esau who became the father of the Edomites. God did not let Israel destroy the Edomites because they were "brothers". Amazingly, in the period between the Old and New Testaments, God finally allowed Israel to forcibly conquer the Edomites, circumcise them, and bring them kicking and screaming into the community of Israel. In fact, most the of Herods in Judah in the Roman empire were Edomites. They were considered related to the Jews. Even though God rejected Esau in favor of Jacob for reasons only He knows, He still kept His hand over Esau's descendants and ultimately brought them into the community of Israel--against their will, mind you, but within His sovereign will. So no, God's "hatred" of Esau does not mean Esau was necessarily not saved, nor were his descendants cut off from God ultimately. God sovereignly directed their history and fate also. We must believe the Bible is telling the truth about God's election and predestination. We also must believe it is telling the truth when it says He loved the world, has great love for us and is rich in mercy, and reonciled the world to Himself. We also must believe that we are expected to respond to Him when He awakens us to Himself, and we must believe Romans 1 that all men are without excuse. These are the kinds of things that cause unbelievers to scoff at the reliability of the Bible. Yet as M Scott Peck says, truth is always a paradox; you cannot teach one half of the paradox and avoid the other without teaching heresy. God is sovereign and chooses some vessels for destruction and others for glory. It is also not His will that any should perish. We must hold these two seemingly opposing statements before us with humility and admit that we cannot understand how both can be true, but we cannot negate the Word of God by denying the part we least like. We have to live with the tension of these truths. Resolution lies in God alone--and He hasn't allowed us to see it! Colleen | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 315 Registered: 1-2003 |
I subscribe to a number of Christian news sources and just received this in my email here at school. I don't mean to add fuel to the fire. Please read this carefully before responding and don't add to what is said. ________________________________________________ Published October 10, 2005 in www.News-Leader.com Emerging churches give Christians new ways to worship MIAMI BEACH, Fla. ó We've all heard of the post-modern church, the post-post-modern church, the emerging church. Last weekend, I saw what that looks like. I was attending the annual meeting of the Religion Newswriters Association, where we considered several aspects of the post-emerging church. I discovered it has many names, many faces and many considerations. What it shares, however, is its unwillingness to be what you expect. Rick Warren, author and pastor of Saddleback, one of the mega-churches is Los Angeles, was our keynote speaker. He calls the church "purpose driven." Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life," along with his other "Purpose Driven" books, have become best sellers. Erwin McManus, author and pastor of the church Rick Warren says he would attend if he didn't have his own wildly successful Saddleback, calls his L.A. church Mosaic and his version of Christianity "The Barbarian Way." Tommy Kyllonen, aka Urban D, reaches the hip-hop culture at his church, Crossover, in Tampa, Fla. Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, Mich., sees the new church as a fresh canvas on which to paint a new picture of Christianity. These post-pastors and their churches do not look or sound alike, but they have in common a passion to create a new church, a Christianity that may seem radical to traditionalists who worship in sanctuaries that have pews and pulpits. Warren was raised in those pews. A fourth-generation pastor who firmly believes that Americans believe in God and Baptists are the biggest denomination, Warren has found financial success and a high-profile influence that has forced him to look beyond that. All that money and notoriety have changed him, he says. Today, he focuses on AIDS in Africa and the orphans of that disease. He expects the church, especially the church in the United States, to fix the world's problems that seem unsolvable. He has a plan ó now in prototype ó for how the "millions and millions and millions of congregations" around the world can change all that. "Politics has had its chance on these issues and it has failed," Warren told the more than 200 journalists attending the conference. McManus considers himself more than post-modern. He is "post-Western." His church, like himself, is made up of many cultures. McManus was born in El Salvador to parents of mixed European heritage, grew up in Miami and ministers in Los Angeles. He came to Christianity from the outside, and he comes to American politics the same way. Urban D, another preacher's kid, wasn't surprised he went into ministry, but he was convinced that ministry must have a new vision and a new context. He established a hip-hop church, but his vision could be seen in any gathering of people who share a passion, then create their worship around that passion. Bell wants to be different, every day. He became a Christian as a young adult, so he has little preconceived ideas about worship ó or anything else for that matter. His church is for those who prefer to be surprised. I was surprised ... and delighted and confused and inspired. The post-post-emerging church should be as interesting to watch and report on as it promises to be for those who worship there. Source: www.News-Leader.com | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 898 Registered: 3-2005 |
Another attempt at a clarification on the statement about God's love. The Agape love of God can only apply to His elect. We would have to say that God has a different love for His church, than the general live and grace he shows to the nonelect, or unsaved. It is not that God doesn't love the whole world as in John 3:16, but it can't mean that he loves the wicked and evildoers, which God says that he hates over and over again in the Psalms. It is impossible for God to love the evildoers in the same way He loves His church. If God loved everyone unconditionally, then universalism would be the only logical conclusion, and that is where a lot of Arminian theology leads. Richard, Thanks for sharing the above. It will take me a long time to read it, but I will reply. There are some very good things that are coming out of the emergent church movement, but some other things that are disturbing. Stan | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 316 Registered: 1-2003 |
Stan, I appreciate your not just "blasting" the emergent church movement in a knee jerk reaction which I've seen many do. In fact I was one of those with visceral gut reactions when I even heard the name. I've read a couple of books by some who are leaders in this and find there is a real dialogue going on between those involved. I have some serious questions but I also see things to be learned in what is happening. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 902 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, it is interesting that this is about the first time I can remember this topic coming up. For now at least we may have worn out the topic of Rick Warren, but I noticed that even though that News article was supposed to be about emergent churches, still the subject of Rick Warren came up prominently. I am not of any conspiracy type, and I don't cast aspersions on Warren's relief efforts for AIDS in Africa. But believe it or not, there has been a big buzz on the web about Warren speaking at the U.N. where he solicited the cooperation of world leaders. Now that politics hasn't worked, now maybe Warren's massive efforts will affect some change. Well those conspiracy types are seeing a scenario of Warren working ecumenically with other groups might create some concern about a worldwide religious movement--well I don't even want to go there about what people are saying, because they are groups that don't really have credibility. Now about the emergent church movement. This is a widely varied loosely affiliated group, so it is impossible to classify as a broadbrush. There is a very good post-modern church in Seattle Wash. pastored by Mark Driscoll, and I will get his website posted when I get a chance. I have been doing a lot of reading on this movement for several months, but I have not seen it brought up on this board before. If folks are interested, there are a lot of aspects that might be worth discussing. I will post some other info on this when I get a chance. But Richard, good topic-Thanks Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 905 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a link to some info about the emergent church movement, that I will admit may be a little biased, but there are a lot of fair and balanced articles, especially the ones by D.A. Carson. Some of you may remember his landmark book "Sabbath to Lord's Day", but he has written extensively on this topic. www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/emergingchurch.html Also Michael Horton of www.whitehorseinn.org has been very congenial and open to discussing new ideas to reach the post-modern world. I just want to be clear that music, style, and other means are never the issue for me, it is always whether the Bible is taught faithfully, and if it is, then I am for it. Stan |
