Over at Slice 2.0, Ingrid was beaming with the news of a Purpose Driven pastor being kicked out of his church for the changes he was making. She had this to say:
“Last night I received a phone call about a large Southern Baptist Church that sent its starry-eyed Purpose Driven pastor packing. The congregation grew alarmed when the pastor, following Rick Warren’s church transformation checklist, followed the tiresome course of dumping the hymns, etc. etc. etc. What he could not have anticipated was the backlash from the church members who basically told him, “NO WAY!â€.”
I found it interesting that the only thing she took time to type out was “dumping the hymns”. It wasn’t “implementing worship, evangelism, ministry, fellowship and discipleship” or “the theology is self serving”. It was about the dang music. This once again points to the fact that the argument is more over style than substance.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
128 Comments(+Add)
Of course Ingrid is going to beam and then focus on “dumping the hymns” – that is her M.O.
It’s all about music for her – because she and her husband are award-winning, conservatory-trained musicians….nothing else measures up.
I have noticed in listening to her shows it seems to me a lot about the “God” anointed Hynms. While I think that issues is taken overboard by her, I have to say it is encouraging to see a church stand up against unwanted change in the name of church growth.
I would venture to say that many churches would never notice a “purpose driven” change if the hymns remained. The music style is by far the most common complaint about style change in a church. Folks that want their music style to be forefront, whether it is hymns or CCM are seeking a man-centered church.
The Mike Corley program mentioned this church and he stated they had a problem with what they heard from the pulpit so it may not be just the music for them, but that does seem like a common issue at Slice. Every church has the right to worship as they wish and we certainly hope it is according to Scripture. Churches that seek to change to a traditional, liturgical, purpose-driven, or whatever type church can do each of those biblically or they can seek a man-centered approach.
I’d be beaming too for the rare occasion of a church coming to it’s senses about this Market, er, Purpose-Driven infestation and kicking the non-repentant pastor out. Rick Warren and the Emergent leaders act more and more like a Jesuit-educated double-talkers.
wow… I am amazed at you guys. I love the name calling. You do know that it is a sign you are scared and threatened, right?
Timothy,
I think you made the point on the post…
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/05/29/the-fruit-of-their-theology/#comment-7005
Blessings,
iggy
Oh, using the “Strawman” technique to paint me as part of that WBC? I’m not the one going off on tangents here.
Timothy,
What strawman? I stated your post makes the point on the one about hate…
It seems that instead of praying for one’s enemies, Ingrid and people like you think it a celebration if the Body is divided and you enemies fall… instead of come closer to Jesus.
I see this in how you responded here… no straw-man, just the point that you have a hate/shame based faith that rejoices in the wrath of God instead of rejoicing in the ministry of reconciliation we have been given.
No, you set up the straw man in your response above… to dodged the point and ignore that your comment above was hateful and not loving… that you rejoice in God’s wrath and despise His kindness…
Be Blessed,
iggy
I see that Ingrid raves about “Glorious Hymn Singing from Wales.”
She prominently lists Katherine Jenkins leading a hymn. Questions.
- Last time I checked, she was living with her boyfriend.
- Isn’t she “teaching”? Aren’t Calvinists vehemently against women teaching?
Then Ingrid claims she isn’t “teaching” with her daily diatribes.
Not only that, but in the “Glorious Hymn Singing from Wales” post, Ingrid is flagrantly linking to copyright-infringing clips from BBC programmes which have been illicitly posted on Youtube.
So it seems she’s okay with committing some sins…
David.
After reading Ingrid’s post, I just picture the 50 or so people in the congregation running the pastor and his family out of town with hymnals in one hand and pitchforks in the other with Benny Hill (not Hinn, lol) music in the background.
I hate bad theology which Purple-Dinosaur-Driven Life and Emergent is. Note that I never attack the people personally but the theology (if it can be called that). Rick Warren (Rob Bell, et al) however, is a public figure who is fair game for character judgement. His unrepentant hypocrisy continues unabated and his twisting of Scripture is not unlike the Jesuits. I see all of this as theology gone market-driven, like the money-changers, whom made Jesus angry and drove them out of the Temple. Yes, Jesus hated the moneychangers of which Rick Warren, Rob Bell, et al are part of.
What is the point of this “ministry of reconciliation?” I can see reconciling sinners with God but are you talking about reconciling Christians to other Christians? If you are, then you can only reconcile people of like-theology beliefs. Purpose-Driven, Emergent, Seeky-Touchy-Feely are not compatible with Biblical Christianity which cannot be reconciled with reprobates.
TB,
The reason Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple was not for the mere fact that they were making money. It was because they were part of a religious system that was based on exclusion. It was Jesus’ declaration that all were welcome in the Kingdom of God, not just those that could jump through the religious system’s hoops.
I don’t really know how you are lumping Rob Bell and Rick Warren together, but you are free to think what you like. Personally, I think there is so much extra cultural baggage attached to Christianity on all sides right now, that Jesus would be turning over tables today, too. It’s ironic that people only accuse pastors of being people pleasers when they aren’t pleasing them.
John 2:13-17 Jesus Cleanses the Temple
13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!†17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.â€
Ok, Phil, I don’t read where this means there was a “religious system that was based on exclusion.” In fact, Jesus called it a “house of merchandise.” Reminds me of my former church where they were selling various books, including Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now” *inside* the sanctuary. If I just had a whip of cords…..
Well, Rob Bell and Rick Warren are lumped together because bad theology deserve each other.
“Well, Rob Bell and Rick Warren are lumped together because bad theology deserve each other.”
I’ve read “Purpose-Driven Life”, and have been regularly listening to Bell’s sermons from Mars Hill, as well as having “Velvet Elvis” on my “to be read” pile (although I’ve flicked through some of it). Not sure where the oft-criticised bad theology is. I certainly haven’t found any.
Timothy,
Here is a more detailed interpretation of Jesus driving the buyers and sellers from the Court of the Gentiles. It was all about exclusion for a motive of profit, and about dishonesty (which the Sadducees were know for, and which archaeology has borne out with the discovery of Annas’ weights, which were off by 10% in his favor).
So, when you write stuff like:
You are revealed as simply throwing around ad homenim attacks without any real knowledge of the subject matter. Then throwing around accusations of ‘bad theology’ just makes you laughable…
If you want to understand a bit of the “why” the Purpose-Driven Life is such a dangerous book:
“CAN YOU BE PURPOSE-DRIVEN AND CHRIST-CENTERED?”
Part One: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2005/09/can_you_purpose.html
Part Two: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2005/09/can_you_be_purp_1.html
Part Three: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2005/09/can_you_be_purp.html
Many articles regarding PDL and Rich Warren: http://www.apprising.org/archives/rick_warren/index.html
The whole temple system as it was set up at the time was based on exclusion. As one got closer to the center of the courts, the fewer people were allowed in. In essence, Jesus was declaring this system was obsolete, and he was the only access to God. It is why directly afterward He refers to himself as the “temple”.
In John 2:19, Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
It was a very subversive act, and I don’t think it was a spur of the moment thing as some people have made it out to be. One does not fashion a whip of cords in just a few minutes. The money changers were making it more difficult for people to buy the animals required for sacrifice. They were in essence selling “temple cash” that could only be used in the temple courts. They were making another level of beaurocracy for people to muddle through to serve God. Jesus was saying that system was not what God desired.
David,
If you have read PDL and not found many errors in it then I have to wonder how much scripture you know. I read PDL, while I can find many good nuggets and I am not going to label it as of the Devil but there is a whole lot that is questionable.
-Usage of many different versions to justify his thoughts, Stating “The Bible says ‘then quotes a bad paraphrase’”
-The call to salvation in Chapter 7, no message of repentance, just a warm and fluffy come to Jesus.
-The whole concept of the book is me, me , me. He starts out by saying it is not about you then he talks about us.
Basically, it is truth mixed with error.
I think that people of “discernment” have maybe gone too far as to be critical of anything and everything from someone they don’t agree with. I think they do too much baby with the bath water. That said, they do add value when these issues are happening in the church.
BTW, I don’t know where Phil gets the idea that Jesus was mad they the money changers “part of a religious system that was based on exclusion” talk about taking scripture out of context……..
David C. – You have made a perception about the blatant ignoring of Scriptural roles for women that most of the reformed group believes. A few months ago I posted this to the consternation of many:
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/elder-blogs-some-blogs-are-devotional.html
Jeff,
I suggest you look at the link in Chris L.’s last post. His explanation is basically what I am referring to. It’s makes much more sense contextually to me than most of the ones I heard in Sunday School or the way it is traditionally spun.
Also, I am not a big Warren fan. My point earlier is that I do not see how one could lump Bell in with Warren. Bell’s sermons contain more detailed explanation of Scripture than anything I have heard from a vast majority of Evangelical pastors.
Nobody should claim that Rick Warren is not a Christian, but the PDL is a well meaning attempt to present the gosepl and the Christian life in a shallow, sales strategy mode that fits in nicely with the average western lifestyle.
That is different from the sacrificial, self denying, and cross bearing presentation that the New Testament teaches. We have all strayed, but these new teachers are making it culturally acceptable.
Phil,
I will take a look at the link when I get some time, thanks.
Rick, I agree with what you said, what has really turned me off about the watchdawgies is they are questioning the salvation of a lot of people. We can’t do that, we can’t judge what we don’t know. We are supposed to judge what we can know…….
TB,
“What is the point of this “ministry of reconciliation???†I can see reconciling sinners with God but are you talking about reconciling Christians to other Christians? If you are, then you can only reconcile people of like-theology beliefs. Purpose-Driven, Emergent, Seeky-Touchy-Feely are not compatible with Biblical Christianity which cannot be reconciled with reprobates.”
Even if I agreed much with some of your points on the market driven church and such… your ideas about seeky-touchy-feely not being compatible with biblical Christianity seems far removed form reality of the bibles teachings.
Remember how Mary anointed Jesus feet? Pretty “touchy-feely†to me? Remember how people would seek out Jesus? And that Jesus taught that to “seek and you will find?†Sounds pretty “Seeky†to me… Remember how Jesus told Thomas to put his finger in the holes of His hands and side? Pretty “Feely†again…
This shows me just how little you understand this ministry of reconciliation…
If you do ever read up about it, you will see Jesus stating things like if two or more gather together I am there… that is about reconciliation… the point it no about agreeing totally on theology or doctrine, but in that we are all saved by Grace through faith by Jesus Christ. In that the grace mercy and love He gives us we give to others.
You statement shows that you think we need only to reconcile with God… and that misses that we are to Love God and love one another…
It seems you are under some very bad theology…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Jeff,
You wrote, -Usage of many different versions to justify his thoughts, Stating “The Bible says ‘then quotes a bad paraphrase’â€
This is a regular criticism of Warren’s book but it is rarely applied to specific issues. I would agree that any author should use one standard version for credibility. However, that does not mean that the use of a paraphrase in a particular instance is not biblically correct. Warren freely admits that if a certain version better communicates his point, he will use it. No one, and I mean no one can come up with a list of acceptable version to make everybody happy. Remember, there are many folks who say that if you do not have the KJV, you do not have the Bible.
Although I see benefit in the book PDL, I would recommend “Don’t Waste Your Life” by John Piper for those that want something a little deeper. Through both of these books, I have seen the effect on many people to go to the Scriptures and serve in the church.
Chris L, I read your article on the passage about Christ cleansing the Temple and I admit you did a good job there and *hereby apologize for taking that passage out of context*. So Jesus was angry that the moneychangers were taking up Temple space reserved for the Gentiles and having dishonest weights and measures while at that. These points were alluded to in the additional words of Jesus known primarily from Matthew and Mark. So if the moneychangers had honest weights and measures and didn’t hog any Gentile spaces, was it OK with God to have moneychangers in the Temple in the first place?
In any case, I do like to see more of this examination of Scripture on all sides. That is exactly what we are commanded to do by God Himself, right? Applying that to this: “Where two or more are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them,†Matthew 18:20. Rather than it being about reconciliation, it is about dealing with a sinning believer (or supposed believer) and excommunicating the believer from the congregation:
“Verse 18 says “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” When the church decides that someone is living a sinful lifestyle and excommunicates that person on Biblical grounds, that excommunication is binding in God’s eyes. Verse 19 follows this instruction saying that where two or three agree on earth concerning a matter of church discipline, God will do it for them. God is affirming that where the church makes a decision based on Biblical precepts, God will agree with it.
Verse 20 follows logically as an extension of verse nineteen. Where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there. What this means is that Jesus is present spiritually to validate the decision that has just been made. Jesus will help guide the church officials and give them peace that the decision they were forced to make was the right one.” http://www.challies.com/archives/000384.php
Can Purpose-Driven Life, Velvet Elvis, etc. stand up to Scripture? Should Matthew 18:20 be applied to Rich Warren, Rob Bell, Robert Schuller, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, etc?
Hey Darren, I know what you mean that you will not satisfy everyone with any certain Bible version, you will always have critics. However, is it our liberty to try to find a bible version to fit the concept that we are trying to make, even though a majority of others might not have that concept?
I think the PDL should and could be used in a proper context, I think there major issues with it, the Christian life should be about Christ, more so than us, about losing our life, instead of discovering it. PDL reverses a lot of basic Christian concepts and it is done by picking and choosing certain scriptures taking them out of context and using them to support Warren’s thoughts.
I will look up that book by Piper, I like him a lot. Thanks for the recommendation
Yes.
Tim,
I have a question for you, do you have anyone that you do respect in the Christian community or do you take the stance that if they are popular then they are apostate?
hey all,
I am curious, I wonder what denomination folks that post here are part of, I think that part of the issue with all these church issues has something to do with denominational differences. While I am not crazy about the PDL, the issue of music doesn’t hit me that hard, unlike Ingrid’s hymnal only stance. The reason why I don’t care so much about the music is I come from denominations that have had upbeat praise and worship for years. I tend to think there is value in hymns and the newer stuff. Like most things it can be taken too far to where praise and worship is like a rock concert instead of God exalting.
My background is AG with a stint at an offshoot of Apostolic without the hair and makeup rules and now I attend a Calvary Chapel.
I try to be as fair and balanced whenever I see new things in the church. When I see CRN criticize something I look into it before I believe it, I think they do bring value but I also think they go too far with criticism.
Jeff, it isn’t popularity that I judge by but rather how Biblical they preach. Usually, the more Biblical you preach, the less popular you will be, in GENERAL terms. The Gospel of Jesus isn’t popular and never will be. So there isn’t really anyone on the level of exposure of Rick Warren or Pat Robertson that I really respect. With the media largely in the control of people hostile to true Christianity, it just isn’t going to happen that a true Christian pastor is going to get such wide exposure, unless it is on the negative side.
Tim,
What about John MacArthur, he has been on Larry King several times?
Here is another question and something that I struggle with, do you think God and use Warren, Olsteen, Robertson to reach people even though they are not “preaching Biblically”?
Personally, I think Jack Van Impe is way off his rocker, however, God used him to reach me and bring me back to his saving grace. If Jack Van Impe falls in your catagory, what does that say of me?
Dwayna Litz posted on her blog links to James MacDonald’s writing on Emergent leaders including Rob Bell and others, some which are his friends. Perhaps James has a more gracious attitude toward them that should be emulated by all, including me. He does have some serious disagreements though. You can read here:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2005/10/why_james_macdo.html
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2005/10/why_james_macdo_1.html
Sorry for the poor spelling in the previous post……..
Jeff,
That’s a good question. I am involved with the AG, and my dad was an AG pastor. To me, musical style is on the bottom of my worries. As far as actual content though, I do find many modern P&W songs lacking. Ironically, I really like most of Passion writers, who are definitely Calvinistic leaning, more than most of the Hillsongs stuff. I guess I think P&W should focus more on transcendence rather than intimacy, although you probably could say the Psalms do both. I just find some modern songs become more about people and our feelings than about God.
TB,
I understand what you are saying about Biblical preaching, but I almost think this type of thinking becomes a self-defeating prophesy for some churches. It’s like they think, “we must be right because no one wants to come to our church,” nevermind the underlying issues within the congregation. I guess my point is that we need to define “popularity”. Are you talking about popularity among the Christian market? Among the general market? I don’t think all of the names you listed before are hugely popular among the general market.
Jeff, God works in mysterious ways. Some people do come to saving faith from just hearing the Bible in cults and even Jack Van Impe. I agree he is off his rocker and I’ve known him since I was a kid in Michigan. Apostle Paul said that God’s Word doesn’t return void despite the intentions or righteousness of the one quoting the Bible. But people being saved to Christ by errant proclaimers doesn’t justify letting the proclaimers to continue in their errant ways.
Tim,
I grew up and still live in Michigan. I do agree with you on that, my wife grew up(in the Lord) on TBN. When I tell here about the issues surrounding Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch she has a hard time with it. Then we discuss the issue of salvation through unbiblical preachers. Whle I agree that God can work through them, as we grow in the Lord we need to reject the error of their teachings when we learn of them.
Phil, what I mean by ‘popular’ is media exposure. Mike Tyson is not popular in terms of being ‘liked’ but he is popular in terms of being ‘known’ and in terms of ‘exposure.’ Pat Robertson really isn’t popularly liked but he is popularly known.
I said earlier, “Usually, the more Biblical you preach, the less popular you will be, in GENERAL terms.” The use of the word “General” implies exceptions, John MacArthur is an exception. But still he isn’t widely known in the secular market.
Dwayna Litz posted on her blog links to James MacDonald’s writing on Emergent leaders including Rob Bell and others, some which are his friends. Perhaps James has a more gracious attitude toward them that should be emulated by all, including me. He does have some serious disagreements though.
[I posted the above earlier with links to the articles but it was hung up in moderation limbo. So you will have to go to Dwayna's blog for links to the articles.]
The James MacDonald articles links on Dwayna’s blog is under the title: “Reasons For Christians to NOT “Emerge”
TB,
I would agree pretty much with the points in James MacDonald’s piece there, and I also think every “Emergent” author I’ve read for the most part. It seems like people have caricature of a typical “emergent” in their mind, that is largely based on their own pre-conceinved notions. It is not much different than asking a Republican to describe a Democrat or vice-versa in that sense. In other words, they just seem like more strawmen.
TB…
Lord have mercy if you take anything Ms Litz has to say serious… her research is so poor… btw she backs Mike Warnke and Laurna Stratford as legit ministries and has demonized Jon Trott for his part in outing them as the frauds they are and were…
Do you support also Mike Warnke as a legitimate ministry… and that he never lied nor misrepresented himself?
So give me a break as her views are so far out that it is like she lives in a parallel universe!
Be Blessed,
iggy
Hey Iggy,
I think I just saw what I see from most the Watchdawgs, I think TB was promoting the article from McDonald and pointing out that the link was on Dwanya’s blog. he stated that he tried to send the direct links but they didn’t work so he pointed to her blog. So you did a guilt by association to TB, which is what many of the critics of the watchers accuse them of doing………
TB,
I too went to your JD article… and if that was true I would not be part of the “emergent” either… I agree Phil, it is but a straw man argument built on hearsay and rumor and has no actual fact to it…
So, if you a can give me speciifce legitimant research… I might listen, but so far you are two for two on litsneing to people who have no idea what they are taling about.
Oh, here a a link to the Warnke thing I talked about…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Jeff,
I went to the article also as I just said… and gave my opinion on it also… which only backed up what I stated about the poor research of both… so there you go, both are guilty of bad research… and they associate in the same circle…
It was error pointing to error pointing to error and I point it out with facts.
So, what was your point? LOL!
Be Blessed,
iggy
Fer crying out loud….the Mike Warnke thingy again. A simple search of Dwayna’s blog doesn’t turn up any mention of Mike Warnke. In regards to Lauren Stratford, she was quoting the first paragraph under “The Cornerstone Offensive” of what a friend of her Gregory Reid wrote. Dwayna did not PERSONALLY wrote anything herself in regards to Mike or Lauren because she didn’t know enough about them to write on them. She just presented Gregory Reid’s writings for people to make up their own minds on what he wrote. To say that Dwayna wrote them is patently false.
iggy,
I don’t know anything about the other issue, but I do know that you did what is often accused of the dicernment folks, without even looking at it you automatically accused TB of wrong for linking to Dwanya’s blog. Yes, you looked into it, only after you first basically stated in no uncertain words that “anything dwayna posts is wrong”. this is often the accusation of the watchdawgs. if Rob Bell wrote it, said it or endorsed someone who did then it must be wrong. That is exactly what you did my friend………
I will again reaffirm my Biblical stance against a non ordained woman rebuking and or correcting an ordained elder (i.e. Warren, Bell, etc.). If you believe that women can be elders than you should state that, but if you do not then it is hypocritical to quote their blogs which stand in the place as doctrinal/teaching/correcting elders.
Women should not rebuke elders, elders should rebuke elders. Women can appraoch an elder in their fellowship with a problem, but they should not publicly rebuke elders including elders from all and any fellowships that they do not even attend.
It is very conspicuous that reformed people who would never ordain a woman as an elder will allow the same woman to publicly reprove, rebuke, and correct an elder. That woman has usurped the office of elder but because she espouses the same perspective as many reformed people they look the other way. I personally see many problems with Bell, Warren, and others, but I refuse to ignore other Biblical teachings just because certain women agree with me.
Now I can assume Iggy and others do not see anything wrong with women elders, but those who do cannot have it both ways.
Jeff,
Again, did you notice I did go and read it… and I found what I stated as true? That is the BIG difference my friend…
It is like if Ken writes something I can almost tell for certain there will be major flaws in the representation of the other he is attacking… it is not doing what they do. I knew that if Ms. Litz backs an article it will be so biased it will be off… and found I was right.
If Ken wrote on Rob Bell and I check the sources… (not his links to his own links) I will find the same thing… Ken makes comments and twists statements to the point it has nothing do do with the original article (most of the time).
Now, what happens to me… is that i have a link to Brian McLaren and am then demonized and called unsaved becasue of a link… not because of what I teach, but because the other hates Brian McLaren…
Here is a recent example of this. Here is a recent example of this.
can you see the BIG difference? One is knowing the person and how they write and think and the other is assuming by a link that you already know what they think…
Blessings,
iggy
Rick,
I do not have a problem with women serving as there were women serving as noted in the end of Romans…
Yet, I see it wrong that a woman “usurps” power from and over men in that she places herself as THE authority over men without a man as her cover… I may indeed be a bit looser in my interpretation than you, but I still see that there is not a “free reign” of women just being in charge without some structure. I see if there is an overseer a woman can even pastor… yet still there are certain parameters that must be in place.
Blessings,
iggy
Henry, I would agree with you if you are talking about within a church. Outside of the church in which Rick Warren or Rob Bell pastors, like with the books they’ve written, I don’t see why it would be unbiblical for a woman to critique such. Dwayna hasn’t told a church what to do with their errant pastor or anything. If a para-church organization is in error about something, I don’t believe it is unbiblical for a woman to point it out.
I disagree but respect your view, Iggy. But when someone like me who doesn’t bel;ieve a woman should be an elder or pastor lets women through the cloak of a blog rebuke other pastors and elders, doesn’t that mean I am compromising my Biblical belief because the women in question happen to agree with my perspective?
Ther are many, and I mean many, godly women who run blogs and I am edified by a number of them. But there are a number of women who openly usurp the authority of men like Bell and Warren. I might disagree with them, but they are ordained men who deserve respect no matter how serious the disagreement. I wonder how these same people would feel if my wife openly rebuked and even smeared John MacArthur?
It is unbibilcal from my point of view. I’m sure Chris L. has similar view like you do Iggy, but that view would be consistent with allowing women to be in authority including publicly rebuking ordained elders. Please, someone explain to me how women can do that and be supported by men who would never ordain them? It is incongruous.
And don’t give me the straw man that the blogasphere isn’t a church. The church is not a building, it is a body. With that everyone should agree!
Rick,
Wait, are you saying that if a person is “ordained” they are exempt from critizsm of any woman? An ordained pastor could be speaking blantent error and a woman is not allowed to speak out against it?
iggy,
I see your point, at first look it seemed similar to the main issue with what the dawgs do…..
BTW I like your blog even though you do link to Brian Mclaren, HAHA. Listening to Iggyrocks right now…..
Rick,
I have never criticized you for your view or convictions… I actually think if you see that as truth and that it is a sin, and that the people you speak of believe the same as you… they too are in sin by the doctrines they live by.
I hope that clarifies my stand… I have nothing against you though I may be looser and I know many are even looser… as I see that there are enough loop holes in scripture that we can enjoy freedom, yet also need to acknowledge that others may not see that as freedom.
Blessngs,
iggy
Jeff,
thanks! = )
My itching ears need to hear that today! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
iggy,
I knew you were apostate, you mentioned that you have itching ears.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Is that how the conversation usually goes? HAHA
I see on your blog you like Missler, I think he is part of Calvary Chapel of which I started attending recently. I like him from what I have seen of him…..
Jeff,
If you want fast facts tossed out in every sentence, yes I love Missler… do I agree on every point… of course not… any more than I do with J. Vernon Magee who is also someone I link to… LOL!
Yet, I find that there are points of each of these peoples story and conversations and teachings that are inspiring to me… they make me want to dig in deeper into Christ Jesus.
Blessings,
iggy
“An ordained pastor could be speaking blantent error and a woman is not allowed to speak out against it? ”
Jeff – One man’s blatant error is another man’s truth. So if you go by the standard you outlined then a woman can rebuke an elder for anything she disagrees with. There are avenues that a Godly woman can follow when approaching an elder.
If she is married she should go with her husband. If she isn’t she can go with an older Godly woman. But God hasn’t given women an ecclesiastical oversight role, unless you believe women can be elders.
Timothy,
You asked:
There is evidence that such ‘marketing’ existed even in the first temple and was acceptable because a) not all Israelites were shepherds – so not all had sheep or sacrifice animals; b) there are strict standards around animals (blemishless, etc) which your livestock might not meet to be sacrificial animal;
SO
At certain festivals and ceremonies where you had to have a sacrifice animal, if you did not have one, you needed to buy one – AND – you needed to buy one that would meet the requirements of the Temple.
The practice of ‘money-changing’ came about to avoid using Caesar’s image (on coins) and the money-changers, themselves, were made into a class of ’sinners’ for even touching the money, and were excluded from the inner courts of the temple. However, because of the exchange rates (which, if we are to believe Josephus, were exorbitant when Jews were not to charge usary to one another) and the unfair balances used – doubly cheating people – this was a lucrative business that both the money changers and their employers (the Saducees) were growing rich on. Then, to make matters worse, they pushed non-Jewish believers out of the Temple to make more room for their illicit trade.
So – while it is not unreasonable, but instead necessary, to sell sacrificial animals – and since Jesus’ message is rather clearly demonstrated in its context to deal with the exclusionary issue and the issue of greed – I think that it is safe to say that the answer to your question is that Jesus’ criticism was not of selling things within the Temple area.
You also brought up the treatment of Matthew 18:20 – which I agree with, and which – coincidentally – is also fully agreed to by Rob Bell. In fact, what Jesus institutes with the ‘two or three’ and ‘binding and loosing’ (here and in Matthew 16) is a change from local synagogue communities which required 10 adult male community members to ‘bind’ (prohibit) and ‘loose’ (permit). It is a misuse of scripture to suggest that Matt 18:20 is about prayer and making requests of God (as some Word-Faith folks teach), but it is about the leadership of a church community ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ decisions for that community – and God honoring that ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’.
I’m not sure why you were applying this to Warren and Bell – the leaders of their respective churches have done no such thing, nor have they had cause to.
You asked:
Velvet Elvis definitely can.
PDL – despite my disagreements on scriptural usage on some issues – is not anti-biblical, but I think tries to justify some preferences via scriptures that don’t justify those preferences (in the same way that Ingrid uses scripture to justify her musical preferences where they don’t fit).
While I voice no support for Schuller, Osteen, Hinn or Robertson, I don’t see where the church bodies to which Warren, Bell and Graham belong have incorrectly applied (or NOT applied) Matthew 18 to them. I would also add that it’s not up to a tin-pot so-called “pastor” in Podunk, NH to excommunicate them, but their local congregations…
We seem to keep going back to “off the topic” subjects (women in ministry, Calvinist/Arminian debates, etc.) can we try to stick to the subject at hand on these boards? I know our discussions go in lots of directions, but it seems that they all end up in the same arguments.
Nathan – my comment about women’s roles were in reference to David C.’s comment about Ingrid’s disclaimers. I did not mean to steer the post in another direction, but once in a while we must notice the hypocrisy in the very essence of some of the posts.
Jesus was asked “Who gave you the authority…” and I think that question is appropriate nowadays also.
Rick
agreed. I just think all these posts are going back to the same subjects (which are somewhat off the topic). Of course your opinion and thoughts are always welcomed on any subject though.
Rick,
you said:
“If she is married she should go with her husband. If she isn’t she can go with an older Godly woman. ”
What is the proper age that a “older” Godly woman can go to the pastor about the issue at hand?
I would guess the elder woman would be one that had grown children. Just a guess.
Sooooo, the question is….
How old is Ingrid?
LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
She dated Zwingli. (did I say that?)
Satire, loosen up.
You mean this one!!!!!!
http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Zwingli/Zwingli.Htm
LOL!
What about Lydia? What about the woman who has no children?
One of the mediators should start a post on woman in ministry, I want to know more about this and get others perspectives. I am sorry for continuing this with rick in this thread, its just something that I want to know more about.
The issue on women in leadership is something that I have not dedicated a level of study to that I would be comfortable discussing all the angles. While there are a number of culturally contextual issues wrapped up in Ephesus, in particular – with the worship of Artemis/Diana as the chief cornerstone of the city during Paul’s day, and prostitution and slave trade as key commodoties – I think that:
1) Those who support a complementarian position – like Rick and Mark Driscoll – have good literal Biblical backing, though the line is pretty fine when you observe practice in similar teachings (about length of hair, covering of hair, etc.).
2) Those who who support more of an egalatarian position – like Bob Hyatt and Rob Bell – have decent contextual backing from the culture of Asia minor and Paul’s commentary in light of the culture, and the role played by deaconesses – mentioned in scripture, though better known through apocryphal works.
Personally, I am somewhat of a ’soft’ complementarian. I believe that Paul’s teaching was contextual to the culture of Asia Minor in terms of women ‘teaching’ men (or, as may be the case, monopolizing community gatherings) and that women like Beth Moore – whose primary audience is female, though not limited to women only – are not overstepping their bounds. However, I believe that his teaching regarding leaders in the church as ‘husbands of one wife’ – is cross-cultural, and should be held to. And – sticking my neck out here – most women I know who take vehement issue with the latter position are ones who, by their very “rights-insistent” nature would likely disqualify themselves from the qualifications of ‘elder’. Conversely, those who would meet the temperment and other qualities of an ‘elder’, would be most willing to lay aside their qualifications for the sake of unity.
I know Bob Hyatt has a different stand than I do, and if he would want to write a guest article on the topic, I would let him do so for the sake of discussion.
Gentlemen, as interesting as speculation can be to some, please let me remind you that God the Holy Spirit’s argument concerning why women cannot have teaching authority over men in the Church in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is based on the Lord’s created order. As such it has zero to do with any culture in any era in His world.
Ken,
then if you take that passage literally as you are saying… are women saved by child birth or by the Blood of Jesus?
Blessings,
iggy
Even more important then if this is your position… why do you let women like Dwayna Litz and Ingrid… teach men?
Blessings,
iggy
I will agree with Ken here and emphasize the next verses after the one he cited. This is an issue that I may not like or may not seem fair, but God has ordained it this way.
I can listen to Ingrid, learn from Ingrid, and respect her teaching on certain things, but she cannot be in spirtual authority over me (1 Cor. 14:34). My professor for math, or Greek could be a woman but classes such as biblical exposition or systematic theology should be taught by men due to the spiritual authority required.
I do take a pretty strict egalitarian approach to this. John Piper and Wayne Grudem are editors for “Recoving Biblical Manhood & Womanhood” if you care for some light reading on this.
Iggy: I take 1 Tim. 2:15 to mean that woman have their place in the body of Christ that is important as well.
Also, as your reformed theology teaches that man is totally depraved… yet they also teach that this is passed through the man it seems Paul then is stating that it is through the woman… so then, how was Jesus born without sin if “it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
Now I think that Chris L’s view has credibility as Ephesus was where Timothy was when Paul wrote this letter to him… That would be in the province of Asia (1 Timothy 1:3).
What that means Ken is that one cannot throw out the “cultural” aspect entirely.
Now, if read closely you might notice that there are a couple of things in this passage….
1. Paul is stating the curse… yet we have so much of Paul’s writing that goes contrary to this passage… There are more passages that state we are no longer under the curse than this ONE that seems to state men and women are under it still. So, do we stay with men and women are still under the curse or not… I think that that in itself holds a bit of suspect to mean something else… or are women saved in some way other that by grace through faith? To take it as literal as Ken does then seems to be that Paul is teaching that men and women are still under the curse. I do not think Paul would teach that.
2. I see that Paul states that he wants women to dress modestly which in that custom which much like ours was to dress provocatively… If a wife did this, I think they would be admonished by their husbands…. At least I would hope, so I wonder if Paul is referring to unwed women or younger women… possibly widows… as Paul later in chapter 3 handles how wives should act. If that is the case then Paul is stating simply that a woman should dress modestly and not be pushy like the women of the culture around them… in that they should look to be married and bear children… as With the promise of salvation that was given to Eve was that a women would bear the Seed who would be salvation, so a woman who submits to authority and respects her husband will also bear the fruit of salvation. To bear a child is the greatest “good work” a woman can do, but hat good work will only be accounted to her as righteousness if she continues in the faith…
3. Now if a woman is seeking to be an authority, often there is the forfeit of the “good work” of child bearing… and that is often what happens even in our own culture as women seek out their career and sacrifice having children. Again, if we were still under the Old Covenant I think that this would be more of an issue, yet we are under Grace and now under the New Covenant… and even Paul states that some should not marry as the time will be of tribulation and to have children would be more of a burden…
4. This is a side note to Ken over a earlier discussion… and that is verse 3 and 4… here is plainly states that God wants ALL men to come to salvation… not just that He is saving just the Elect as Calvin teaches… but that is a side note as I stated.
Blessings,
iggy
“Paul” isn’t stating anything on his own. God is directing his inspired Apostle to record His thoughts on the subject. Period. End of story. Culture has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
AHHHH duh Ken… no one is debating that!!!!LOL!
So Paul is never addressing culture in the Bible… like when he tells women to not wear too much adornment or men should not dress like a woman?
you make me laugh!!!!
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
Simply put, Paul is stating that a woman should not get caught up in the curse of the fall that was the cause of woman wanting to be over a man… Gen 3: 16. “To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”â€
Instead she should focus on doing good works such as the greatest on of childbearing… this is not just a rule to not let women teach or speak or be in some sort of power hierarchical structure, but an admonishment to encourage women to seek God and do good works instead of seeking to be like the culture around them in their constant power struggles which includes taking power from a man even her own husband.
Really with the cultural aspect in place this makes more sense than Paul contradicting himself by saying in one place, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female 2 – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.†(Gal 3:28) as in Christ there is no more power struggle… as Jesus is the final authority of all. If we take it as Ken states then Paul is telling us that there is male and female in Christ Jesus and the curse of the fall was not overcome by the blood of the Lamb.
Blessings,
iggy
One thing I can say about your posts, Iggy, is that when you write long ones, they are hard to follow. Your thought process seems disjointed and hard to figure out the logical sequence from one point to the next. By bringing in extra-Biblical concepts, such as modifying the meaning of Bible verses because of the “culture” of the time, you make reading the Bible torturous and complicated.
As far as women in ministry, I came from a denomintion that has historically had female pastors, elders, etc. I honestly never really ever gave it any thought until a few years ago when I met some people who brought it up. I just always kind of thought it was a non-issue now. After doing some research, I am still convinced of the egalatarian position.
The thing that bugs me more than anything is the stance that Ingrid and other seem to be taking that if you do take a position that women can serve as pastors you are automatically apostate. Just look at the stink being raised about the church that hired a female senior pastor recently. This is just utterly ridiculous in my mind.
The other thing that I would say is there are a lot of other issues that I could provide just as much Biblical support for that these people would just ignore. Take speaking in tongues, for example. I can find more evidence to support that than the whole women in ministry issue. I really think the reason it is such an issue is that a lot of men genuinely fear smart and strong women, and this issue is a fig leaf for them. There are other cultural issues involved as well, not the least of which is the alliance of feminism with the liberal left.
Anyway, this is off-topic, as Nathah has pointed out, and I don’t want to get into a huge argument about it here.
TB,
IN my posts can you tell me where the “extra biblical” concepts are… like how is the location of a city in the bible “extra biblical”…
Really most people say I write pretty simple and clear and they under stand me… as I tend to not always use the “Christianeze” jargon.
As far a logical flow… I may wonder a bit… but if you can think logically you can understand logically… and the real issue is that most typical theology like that of Ken and most likely yourself is based on an outside biblical view… which came from Plato and is influenced by Gnostic Dualism…
So, to break it down to simplicity for you… you are under some very bad theology that taints your biblical view to the point that the original idea is gone and a man made view is inserted and has perverted the original concept.
Blessings,
iggy
As for ‘women being saved through (or during) childbearing’ – if you look at Ephesus, where this letter was first directed, and the cult of Artemis/Diana, you can get a clue as to this meaning of this oft-debated passage.
In the first century, it is estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of women would die in childbirth or due to complications from childbirth. The Temple of Artemis (one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world) and the Paradise within were believed to offer women protection during childbirth. Thus, it is estimated that 100,000 or more women would come to Ephesus each year to gain protection from Aretmis/Diana during childbirth. A number of scholars view this passage from Paul as saying that Christian women should look to God for their salvation during childbirth, and not to the cultish superstitions – and that God will save them through (during) their childbirth, regardless of their physical survival…
I was wondering if anyone would care to comment on Joe’s article about Ken and Jim Jones. He recently posted about Ken’s attack on Rob Bell. For some reason he did not post the article here though.
TB,
Any good exegesis of scripture takes into account the cultural context. I don’t understand why you would criticize Iggy for that. It is one of the first thing that they teach you in seminary intep classes.
To clarify an earlier statement I meant to say that I take to the complementarian position.
Regarding context, we certianly value to know what surroundings God used when He gave the words to the Biblical authors. The key is that we understand that the Word of God does not change and applies to every single culture past, present, and future. One thing that helps me is how did the church treat this at the time Paul wrote it?
Any change in culture still must correctly apply the text. What cultural changes over 2000 years would cause us to change the way we apply the text?
An example is homosexuality. They will argue that because it is more accepted it is not a sin, and we now know that the biblical reference on homosexuality meant homosexual prostitution. They are trying to suggest it only applied to that culture.
Darren,
On the whole issue of women in leadership, I think there are signifigant cultural differences from the time Paul wrote those passages to now. The main one being education. It really was unheard of for women to have any type of education that could even begin to compare with their male counterparts at that time. Of course Paul would not want a woman who was unqualified to lead any more than he would want a man who was unqualified to lead.
Basically women at the time were not valued anywhere near as much as men. That is why when Paul writes,
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
it is revolutionary. There is no other such statement that can be found an any literature from any culture at the time.
Phil,
Would you apply that to your wife and due to our culture today, consider her possibly being the head of your household because of her education or any other factor?
“You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; He gave His life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God’s word†(Ephesians 5:22-26).
My point is not what makes sense or what is fair, but what God has ordained.
Another example. Before I was a Christian 15 years ago, my wife of one year committed adultery, refused reconciliation after I offered forgiveness, and would not go to counseling. She had moved out and said she would not be back. I initiated divorce. I was remarried and we just celebrated our 12 anniversary.
Now some folks will say I am not qualified for pulpit ministry such as the Internation Missions Board or even John Piper because I am not the “husband of one wife.” Others will say I had a “biblical divorce.” I must put aside not only that fact that divorce is more normal today, or my own bias that it is not fair. I have to dig into the Scripture with all my literal being to figure out what the writers meant when they wrote and how it applies today.
I can see why the complementarian position seems unfair or unreal in today’s world but God gave us each our role and our gifts of equal importance.
Darren,
I think the whole “head” word needs to be interpreted in context as well, as that whole issue has been abused and misused through history. The fact is I’m not basing my argument on fairness, or political correctness, just the interpretation of Scripture I find most correct. This: is the official position paper from the AG, and I think it pretty much sums up my beliefs on the subject.Personally my wife and I have made every big decision in our marriage together. I’ve heard people present hypothetical situations where they ask, “well, what if you come to a stalemate about something?” I can honestly say that’s never happened, and I can’t really imagine something like that. If both members in a marriage put the other’s interest before their own, it’s virtually impossible.
Darn it! Would someone mind closing that tag for me. Thanks.
Nathan, yes, I know that understanding the cultural context of written material helps in understanding in a full sense the written material itself. That is a given.
What you and Iggy and others seem to be saying is that the applicability of certain parts of the Bible changes as the culture changes. If that is what you believe, that appears to be relativism. I have not read in the Bible any commandment that we are to consider changes in culture as to the truth of certain Bible verses to that new culture.
This is 2 Timothy 3:10-17: “10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of God, wrote that the Bible, as written, is to be taken at its word. If it was meant to be modified in accordance with what the culture is, then I’m sure God would say so in His Word.
Timothy,
Just to note that when Paul wrote “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”, “scripture” was considered to be what we now call the Old Testament, though we have extended this to include the books canonized in the New Testament.
I am just guessing, but I suspect that you and your church do not greet one another with a holy kiss, forbid braiding of hair, etc. – all cultural practices suggested by Paul. If this is the case, then you, too, are making culturally contextual decisions on ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’, based upon the scripture.
One reason that the role of women within the church is often included in ‘non-essentials’ – or has more widely varied interpretation – is because (among other things) the Pauline instruction has the appearance of being culturally contextual because, unlike many of his admonitions, it is not firmly rooted, doctrinally, in the Hebrew Scripture. Homosexual practice, on the other hand, is called out specifically in the Old Testament (and not in the terms of fornication or prostitution), and reaffirmed by Paul as a culturally transcendant prohibition.
With this in mind, it is much more within the purview of local elders to consider ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ – based upon scripture – the role of women within those churches.
TB,
It is so odd to me that you don’t get it and then quote a scripture that backs up what I had said… that we are to focus on doing the “good works” of God….
In that I have a question… Paul states about meat sacrificed to idols that “if your conscience says it is a sin then it is, but if not then it is not.” This is of course paraphrased there but that is the point… which seems al little bit based relative to that persons understanding of their “freedom” in Christ… and in that sounds a bit… relativistic…
So, how do you explain Paul teaching some “relativism” in Romans 12, 14, and in 1 Corinthians?
Just asking for the sake of asking…
I am not saying all things are relative as you think, in fact not many IF any emerging folk, let alone PDL fold would hold to relativism… that is mostly something that anti emerging folk CLAIM we believe but I have yet to see taught as said claim is presented.
Blessings,
iggy
“the Pauline instruction has the appearance of being culturally contextual because, unlike many of his admonitions, it is not firmly rooted, doctrinally, in the Hebrew Scripture.”
I’m guessing if we try and think here we could make the case that when God the Holy Spirit steers Paul to base his argument in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 on the created order itself that there’s a pretty good chance it’s “firmly rooted, doctrinally, in the Hebrew Scriptures.” *shaing my head* Absolutely amazing…
Ken,
Are you sure that it is the “created order” that Paul is administrating? If so it seems that Paul is teaching that men and women are still under the curse and not free in Christ… to see it this way contradicts Paul in Gal 3:28 as I stated… it negates that we are all one in Christ…
Again, I think it is that Paul is encouraging women to be free in Christ and to do “good works” as stated earlier in the passage… that seems to be the core of the passage.
But you can still go ahead and mix the Old Covenant and New together as you do… Put I recommend a high does of Galatians for that ailment. I see really it is you that are semi-Pelagian… ; )
Be blessed,
iggy
iggy,
Your comment only further shows your spiritual blindness. How sad for the fools who would adhere to your teachings.
The Theology of Hate beaming once again.
nathan,
You got it right. I hate false teaching: “The righteous hate what is false. (Proverbs 13:5)
Ken,
The only false teaching here is yours, so if you’d shut your mouth there would be no more of it…
LOL!
Ken,
Your graceful and loving spirit comes shining through once again… not to mention you just said that many great thinkers and theologians are also spiritually blind… and ignorant! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
Chris L,
About Ken….
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks… as Jesus stated to the Pharisees… Matthew 12:34
blessings,
iggy
Ken,
“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 1 Tim. 3:1-3″
Pastors should adhere to these verses. Iggy, right or wrong, was trying to have a discussion with you and your “fools” comment help take the discussion toward the negative. What parts of these verses were you exhibiting? Strive to be above reproach, gentle, and peaceable and I guarantee you will be far more effective than you could ever imagine.
Darren,
You do know I’m 51 and not 7, right?
Ken,
Numerical age has nothing to do with it.
This……..
“To know wisdom and instruction,
To discern the sayings of understanding,
To receive instruction in wise behavior,
Righteousness, justice and equity;
To give prudence to the naive,
To the youth knowledge and discretion,
A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and a figure,
The words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” – Prov.1:2-7
…has everything to do with it.
Just because I am 40 does not mean I cannot learn from someone younger than me. Just because I am licensed by an SBC church and have a seminary degree, does not meant I cannot learn from someone with no license or formal training.
I wasn’t referring to any of that by the way.
Darren,
This is an example why churches like Ken’s are getting smaller… they do not listen nor show any real sign that they love people… they are more concerned with being “right” and keep themselves “pure” than sharing the Kingdom of God. They desire only the accolades of other men…
Ken plays this out every time he and I converse (if you call it that).
Blessings,
iggy
“Ken plays this out every time he and I converse (if you call it that).”
Hard to converse with someone who diesn’t listen and I have seen this time and time again in the emerging church “conversation.” Everything’s fine until you disagree…
Ken,
I agree completely!!!! I do listen, yet you miss I was you once… I already heard it and taught it and… have been freed from it…
The point is that you do not listen, but only mock and put down… in that why should I listen to a bully? A noisy gong gets annoying after a while… ya know? It is also hard to hear over the crashing cymbals…. ya know?
Gong, bash, gong ,crash… yep I hear ya… I hear ya loud and clear… but I do not think you hear me at all… in that why should I listen to one who care little about me? Why if I see no kindness, love ,grace, mercy, patience, long suffering.. yep it is hard if those are not there. In fact I do hear you arrogance, pride, and envious spirit… I hear your rudeness to me and others… yep I hear ya…
Crash, Gong… bash, Gong…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Ken,
Also it is not in the disagreeing we have trouble in… it is in your delivery of your positions… in fact there are many who think like you do on many things… but you won’t hear that…
The key ingredient that we “emergents” have in our conversation is respect for the other… in fact we tell each other they are wrong and debate heavily on things, but somehow remain friends… but take out that respect and you get… Ken the living Gong show…
Be Blessed,
iggy
I was gone yesterday, great thoughts even though it got off topic from the original.
A few thoughts, there are very strong opinions here from many people but I take away that Iggy has an opinion and is willing to admit that he could be wrong and hasn’t figured it out. Ken knows everything, and is willing to let you know.
It really is a shame; I used to have a great amount of respect for Ken until I discovered this site. I used to listen to him on Corley and even though I would catch glimpses of aggression I would blow it off as zeal for the Lord. After reading much of his comments here I have been able to see Ken’s fruit. Thanks Ken for posting on this site, you comments are very revealing.
I still say that there is a great need for discernment but I think that Ken’s approach could use some (a lot of) refining.
Jeff,
No problem. I’m glad you can’t sit on the fence when you hear someone sent by Christ.
Jeff,
thanks for listening to Jesus… the One that was sent by God.
Blessed,
iggy
Ken,
Your humility is your best asset. You know, I have heard you on Corley say, you were called to do this, that is was something that God opened up for you to do. If that was the case then you wouldn’t give a rip about what is being discussed on this forum about you. Furthermore, if you didn’t comment on this site I probably would still have the respect for you that I once did. Do we share common thoughts on a lot of stuff, I don’t like what some of the EM movement has embraced, “Christian” Yoga, Comp prayer, and other practices. However, I cannot stand by you with the way you have conducted yourself on this forum. The arrogance and snide remarks are appalling.
Jeff,
I do not think Ken caught you are a supporter… otherwise I cannot see how he would have been SO UNKIND in his comment to you…
Yet I hope you see that behind the thin facade, that Ken is not as he present himself to those who “agree” with him. In fact he shows that he cares little for those who do not agree with him and in that is as the scripture teaches that in 2 Cor 11: 14 – 15.
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
There are men who think they are as the Apostles and are arrogant as if they were hand selected by God to teach all others… they masquerade as servants of righteousness… yet only teach their own self righteousness… if you disagree with them they turn on you and then try to devour you.
Does this describe Ken? I hope not, but as far as I can see from my own interaction with him… I cry wolf and must stand to protect the flock or I fail in my own pastoral duties.
I pray for Ken daily that he can see that humility of of God… and arrogance is only a pseudo-assurance. True assurance is that one can be kind and loving and yet firm in their stand on the Truth which is Jesus Christ. False assurance must assert itself in such a way to build of a wall of protective pride so that none can get through and that one is safe in their own reality or understanding… so one cannot live in their own reality instead of living in the Reality that is Jesus Christ. Instead of truly trusting in Jesus and His finished works, some teach trusting in THEIR doctrines and TRUSTING them.
So that is why the scirpture states plainly, “beware divisive men”.
Blessings,
iggy
We share a lot of common concerns, I think that Ken takes things too far, is too arrogant, and seems to be mean spirited to anyone who does not agree with him. It is possible to speak out against issues of concern with humility and kindness, I don’t’ see it in him from his posts here. Do I have concerns about what I see (on my own) from Rob Bell, Mclaren, Erwin Mcmanus, Rich Warren, Olsteen, Hinn and others, Yes. Am I going to humbly admit I had not read everything about them and admit that they might offer some good even though they might have a lot of bad, Yes. Am I going to question their salvation or will I admit that I have the Bible or God all figured out, No Way. I don’t live in a box, anyone who thinks they have it all figured out is fooling themselves………
Jeff,
“If that was the case then you wouldn’t give a rip about what is being discussed on this forum about you.” Who says I do? I happen to care about the people here who discuss what they think is me. I’m afraid you mistake boldness in Christ for arrogance. Not that I’m him, however what would John the Baptist sound like to people today?
I’m not upset with you, iggy or anyone else here, but for the grace of God I’d be as spiritually blind as some others who comment here. You mention: “Do I have concerns about what I see…” I’m glad you do but I am constrained by Christ to not only have concerns but I also have to directly confront this apostasy. That I do so sometimes in forums like this while a MacArthur does it internationally is fine by me.
My brother don’t fall for this straw man: “anyone who thinks they have it all figured out is fooling themselves.” NO ONE is saying we have things all figured out but to follow Jude 3 we would have to KNOW what that faith is. Make sense? Ease up there my man, I’m not nearly as harsh as you might think.
But on the same token Jeff I don’t get too sit back because the Lord has seen fit to have me engage the battle for truth on this front He has placed me. It doesn’t mean I know it all, and it sure doesn’t mean I think I’m better than anyone else. On the contrary, I’m among the weakest of the weak in the back of the spiirtual bus. Right where I want to be…
Ken,
If what you say is the way you feel, it certainly doesn’t show with your comments……
Ken,
We do not mistake ‘boldness in Christ’ as arrogance from you – because Christ does not (and did not) use slander, isogesis and blatant error in criticizing the Pharisees of his day. In fact, those were the methods of his opponents, which is why we recognize you as such…
Jeff,
If you want to try and keep in mind what I said as you…well, ah – reimagine
what you have seen from me – then you will likely see what those who actually know me see. Up to you my brother.
Chris L.,
Well, that is certainly one way to look at what I do and those who work shoulder to shoulder with me in defense of the Gospel like Bob DeWaay would see it another. You…him…I’ll go with with him if you don’t mind.
Ken,
If Bob DeWaay suppors slander, isogesis and blatant error as you do, I wouldn’t follow him into a grocery store…
Now, now Chris L. I’m trying to be nice here. What I was politely saying is that men like Bob DeWaay and me don’t think what you consider slander eisogesis and blatant error really is such. We think you’re wrong.
You aren’t going to change my view and I am not going to change yours. See; disagreement with no name-calling k. I want to make sure we’re not sending you on your trip with your son in a bad mood. *psst* Don’t tell anyone, but I actually do have a heart for young people…
It doesn’t matter what the post subject, it almost always morphs into…Ken.
Here’s a post chronology:
The Rapture to Judgment to Eternity to Election to Politics to Tabernacle to Faith to Emergent Church to Methodology to Communion to The Great White Throne to KEN!!! Like a blogosphere mousetrap game.
Ken,
Really a simple “sorry Jeff” would speak more loudly than anything, but that seems to be beneath you to say the “s” word…
Be blessed,
iggy
Rick,
LOL!
Blessed,
iggy
iggy,
With all due respect. Please heed Rick’s polite exhortation to stay on subject and I ask you to please mind your own business.
Rick,
I’m with you here. It would appear that whatever the subject matter it is a rouse to “get at” me. Sad.
Ken,
You offended someone within this thread… in that it has become part of the topic…
Stop sidestepping it and deal with it… it is your mess clean it up.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Guys, I’m going to close this thread since it has strayed SOOOO far from topic. I think it would be valuable to have a thread on the complementarian/egalatarian issue, and if one of the other writers wants to tackle it, that would be great, but I’m a bit tied up taking care of loose ends here (and possibly one more Fishing post)…