After reading this article from Apprising Ministries, I finally understood what they are trying to say to the world. Essentially they are pushing that God is incapable of awakening spiritually dead people through the power of the gospel. I mean, it appears that their assessments of those who communicate the movement of Jesus Christ to the dead are seemingly wasting their time. You see, my good friend is a film maker and a follower of Christ, who will be attending the Rethink Conference this week with me. The language that his friends speak is film. It is their life, occupation, passion, drive and culture. So, it would make sense that Joe would be interested in hearing from Rupert Murdock, and learning what is new and innovative in his field. Not so that he can make the next latest and greatest film, but so that he can make the next latest and greatest film that will point people to the person and character of Jesus Christ. Through his work, he can create a great entry point for conversation about the gospel.
There seems to be a false dichotomy that Apprising makes here. They separate culture and innovation with the preaching of the scriptures. Ironically, while they preach this message, they would never actually adhere to it. You see, years ago someone had to attend an event where they began to “rethink†the use of the internet for reaching people for Christ. It was this reevaluation of technology, culture and innovation that allowed Apprising to even have a voice today.
No one comes to Christ in a cultural bubble. Early on, preachers rented theatres and lecture halls to preach the gospel… unimaginable until someone decided to rethink locations. Later, tracts were printed to communicate the gospel… unimaginable until someone decided to rethink the printing press. Then we began television and radio ministries… unimaginable until someone decided to rethink modern communication avenues. Now the internet, film and the arts are being used as a gateway for conversations over the gospel… all unimaginable until someone decided to rethink. Here’s a little secret for everyone: most inventors of these technologies were not believers. We actually had to learn innovation and technology from those who are “dead†**gasp**
Every era has those who are late adopters of technology and innovation, but the next generation never even thinks twice about using it. I mean, today we don’t even blink when publishing printed material. So, if these ODMs really want to practice what they preach, shut down the websites, stop printing materials, stop making films, stop selling DVDs and CDs, stop using paypal for online donations, shut down the radio stations, and go back to just preaching. Or, maybe rethinking the world is not such a bad idea after all.
On a side note… I think the longer that we have lived “alive in Christ”, the easier it is to slip into a appathetic and cynical attitude towards those who are still dead in their sin. Let us always remember where we have come from, and always passionately strive to help awaken the dead.
![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")
53 Comments(+Add)
I think the real reason this conference is thought of as bad is because all the “heretics” are attending. Once they see that, it’s open season on the conference regadless of the stated goals of the conference or how effective it is. A heretic is there, it’s automatically totally false. Baby with the bathwater.
You know know it goes Nathan…
Joe
That’s like saying…”John Piper sins, so we should protest his church and not go to it. Also, nothing he says can be trusted, because he sins.”
“So and so at the rethink conference is a heretic (a sin, and sin is sin), so we should protest the event, and anyone who goes to it is wrong and sinning, and nothing that goes on there will be good for the Kingdom, nor can it be trusted”. This is the obvious vibe we get from the ODMs on this matter. If they protest and say this isn’t what they mean, then why do so many people perceive it that way? Perception is everything, so we need to speak clearly.
Joe
That was an interesting parable written at Apprising Ministries – unfortunately to make the subject fit the mold they have to reshape it – the subject that is…
This is how the conference is being billed by those who are organizing it. AP misses or ignores this point when they say “…it is with our preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; either we preach Him crucified and in the power of God the Holy Spirit, or we are simply filling cemeteries full of people who have no ability to choose life on their own.”
We all would say, along with AP, “Amen” and let’s study the culture to see how we can best go about preaching our message.
Neil
Spare me. The content that men like Schuller preach is garbage. Preaching in a theatre or auditorium has nothing to do with what is being preached. You all know that….., I think.
Schuller has never proclaimed the Gospel. Also anyone who understands Schuller’s message, and claims to be a follwer of Jesus Christ, would not stand on the same stage with him.
Don’t give me the guilt by association argument either. Jesus ate with Zaccheus, but He brought the message. Zaccheus had nothing to say, or do, other than to repent AFTER coming to saving faith in Jesus.
If you want to preach the message, then put together your own conference. When you stand side by side with so-called prophets and leaders who preach another Gospel, then you appear to be endorsing their version.
I have no need to listen to Rupert Murdock in order to keep up with the latest innovations in technology. I am sure that there are many believers who have that knowledge. I don’t believe that Murdock will speak on technology anyway. He has plenty of flunkies to do that for him.
These men are bringing in the “brave new world”
and c’mon…..Larry King???
The website calls Schuller “the godfather of doing church differently”.
Isn’t that enough of a reason to dislike it?
And really, how the heck does Larry King fit into any of that?
(there is humor there somewhere, you may have to look for it, though, or leave out Reese’s, humor likes chocolate and peanut butter)
It is right to question any, and every new innovation.
We should investigate and ask questions.
We should ask Why? Just because we can “Should we”?
We should always be aware of the unintended consequences of any innovation.
So on one hand. AM and SOL are right to question and challenge. The problem is that they often don’t do that. They just reject something out og hand because of the tag attached to it.
I am a technologically apt Luddite. I love new things. Always have. From my Dos 286 forward I have loved technology. I have tried to question and evaluate each innovation that comes into my life. I try and look for the unintended consequences.
Yesterday……..we were in K-mart and saw an add for a FIVE blade women’s razor. Does anyone really believe five blades are significantly better? Anyone remember 1 blade? I found my self saying WHY?
Bruce
I would probably ask myself that too if I found myself looking at women’s razors.
I wondered about Larry King myself…
Neil
Phil,
My wife was with me. Does that count?
Bruce
Every time I read Ken’s stuff I see him missing the point… the only man based gospel is the one that states that the gospel is ALL about ME getting saved… which is the gospel he preaches.
Now, I agree that many preach to dead people, yet Ken misses that Paul states that ” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” so contrary to the rubbish that Ken states, dead men seem to be able to “hear”… as faith comes from hearing the message.
So, again I choose to believe the Bible over Ken Silva… and will move on in the Life of Christ and rejoice that He lives in me.
iggy
Chris P shows again that he lives in an alternate universe as he brings things into the conversation such as “Larry King”…
Let us hope at least he knows what he is talking about…
iggy
BTW,
The Reformers had their own “rethink” conference… yet most of them ended up not talking to each other afterwards…
iggy
Iggy,
I have issues with Shuller as well, but I’m not going to go as far as Chris P…. though I do echo his question about Larry King.
Neil
I really have never understood how people can Schuller seriously, honestly. He seems so boring to me. To me, he make Mr. Rogers sound like an elder statesman. To each his own, I suppose.
Sorry I have no idea why Larry King keeps coming up… I did not find him mentioned in anything other than Chris P’s comment which made very little sense to me.
I doubt Schuller will come up with anything that will move the mountains… and I have issue with Schuller myself… yet, Ken seems to be stating that dead people cannot respond to the message of the gospel. That is a lie and heresy…
Also, as noted the message is not being changed, it is how we can present it. Ken insists on misrepresenting about anyone he can… and again that is bearing false witness and a sin.
Now, if one is ignorant or is deceived, such as may be the case of Schuller, Ken claims the truth yet continues in his sin.
So, I wonder if some might benefit more with the Rethink forum that reading Ken’s unbiblical AP articles…. at least one of them is trying to get the gospel to the dead to see them come to life.
iggy
Rethinking is not the problem, redefining is.
I mentioned him ’cause he was listed as a conference speaking and I wondered how he fit in – that’s all.
Neil
Iggy: Neil beat me to the punch, but Larry King keeps getting mentioned because he is one of the keynote speakers. Speaking of which, the list of “speakers” at this event is a doozie!:
– George Foreman (I think he’s also catering the event)
– Larry King (probably the official “MC”)
– Don Moen (used to love his music)
– Dan Kimball (I’ll be nice and not say anthing derogatory about his “do”)
– Ben Stein (”Beuller…Beuller…”)
– Lee Strobel (WillowCreek…yuk!)
– Kathy Ireland (I guess I live in a time warp or something–I have no idea who she is)
– Dr. Robert Schuller (…I just can’t…I just can’t say it)
– and Kay Warren (she’s qualified… just like Hillary and Brett Favre’s wife)
Tell you what I’m “rethinkin’”…my money’s better spent somewhere else.
The fact that Keith is familiar with Ferris Beuller’s Day Off pushes him up a couple of notches of coolness in my book.
Tim: Thank you for noticing my “coolness.”
Ingrid had one of the organizers of the Rethink Conference on her show last week. He extended her an invitation to attend. Wow, you would have thought he was asking her to be a runway model at a Victoria’s Secret fashion show. She could barely hide the contempt in her voice. After a break she returned and carried on about being “unevenly yoked”. As if merely being in the same room with people that have not achieved as high a state of Ingridness might somehow compromise her own.
What’s wrong with Lee Strobel? Is it because he was on staff at both Saddleback and Willowcreek?
Keith,
I noticed it a long time ago, way back when you posted some drawings. The Ferris Beuller thing just kicks it up a notch.
I find it funny that this is a conference… not a church or anything… so what if by accident Larry gets saved?
also, Mike, where do you see that this is redefining… Not all will be giving the “gospel” (at least as you might understand it) yet I would not be so bold to state all there are redefining the gospel…
SO are you opposed to looking at different ways to present the Gospel? I mean your radio show is relatively new… Jesus never had a radio show… nor Paul… not John might have seen radio in his visions… but I think that there many are tossing the baby out and keep the bathwater in the attempt to keep things just as they see they should be.
iggy
I find it funny that we get all excited when we get to go on Larry King’s shows (Warren, MacArthur, Jakes, etc.), but when we ask him to come talk with us about innovations and trends in communications, we get nervous. It is somewhat absurd to think that we can ONLY learn from believers.
Mike,
I acually think there are a number of things that we need to redefine in the church.I can come up with a handful of things in the church today that do not match their biblical definition.
Mike, I would also say that many years ago someone “redefined” what was acceptable for ministry and allowed radio preaching.
Nathan,
Point taken regarding King, though most Christians he has on seem to be more of an embarrasement… maybe the conference will help him meet some better representatives of the faith.
Neil
very true. I know he and Erwin have been in conversation for some time now. Maybe he will be less critical of beleivers after this experience as well.
Iggy, did I say all are redefining?
Nathan, I would go a step further and say that there are some areas that just clearly need to be defined, rather than redefined. I agree with Ed Stetzer who recently said that we can no longer just assume that people have the correct understanding of God; that no longer do we in America have the “home field advantage”.
So in saying that we need not to redefine, I mean that can redefine, reexamine methods, tools, approaches, as long as the Gospel is not redefined, distorted or diluted, because it is perfect like it is.
Mike,
I understand what you’re saying about redefining, but I wonder if redefinition isn’t just part of the normal ebb and flow of church life to some extent. Take a rather inoccuous word like “holiness” – obviously this word has meant different things to different generations. To my parents it meant not going to movies, not drinking, and basically a whole lot of other nots. I’m not saying that entirely wrong, but I think there are aspects of that word that their generation missed.
Perhaps a better word than “redefine” would be “refine”. It seems that the Church is always in a refining process. Honestly, I question the ability of this to really be done at these big conferences, and I guess I would say refining starts at home.
The Gospel is perfect, yes, but the window through which we see it can always be made a little clearer. It seems that this window has gone through different stages of fogginess and clarity throughout the centuries.
“what if by accident Larry gets saved?” (Emphasis mine)
Then God wouldn’t be very sovereign, would He?
Depends on your definition of sovereign, I guess, since we’re talking about redefinition.
Matt: My “disdain” for Lee Strobel–just being honest here–IS because of his association with Willowcreek. May not be fair, but as I said, I’m just being honest. Actually, I’ve read some of Mr. Strobel’s stuff, as well as Bill Hybels. –most recently “Just Walk Across the Room” by Hybels. They DO have some good things to say, it’s just that my personal experience (a very bad one) with a congregation turned seeker sensitive has tainted my feelings toward Hybels and Strobel or anyone else associated with that congregation or movement.
===
Nathan: I think we have something WAY more valuable to tell the world than the world has to tell us. I’m not interested in how the world does things. (I’m not trying to be mean-spirited about this. Just answering your “question” and stating an opinion.) I’m really not that interested in anything T.D. Jakes has to say either, but maybe that’s a different thread.
Phil: How does/can someone get saved by accident?
8^)>
Keith,
Well, I’m not a Calvinist so I don’t believe that God foreordains everyone’s exact moment of salvation. I guess “by accident” is kind of an odd term here. I guess the closest example I can think of offhand is someone like Josh McDowell who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up getting saved.
A Calvinist would of course God had planned that turn of events from the beginning. My view is that God used different things in McDowell’s life to lead him to that point. It was accidental from McDowell’s perspective maybe, but not God’s. He working that way along.
Of course Phil…
From our perspective, it always, at least initially, looks like free will to us. Then people develop/learn theologies like Calvinism to help explain what they experienced.
But from a human perspective, it’s always free will. We can’t shake that, no matter how entrenched in to Calvinism, Predestinationism (new word lol), etc, we get, we’ll always have that inkling of “free will”, because we’re willfull creatures who act on our desires.
From God’s perspective…well, I suppose I can’t give anyone that lol. I don’t know it myself. He knows all and sees all. So… Predestination from God? Sure. Free will for us? Sure.
Joe
Joe,
I guess my perspective on the issue of free will and predestination has changed somewhat through the years. I just have a hard time reading the Bible through the lens of predestination. It seems that many things God says would be disingenuous if everything were truly predestined, and the future was set.
Anymore, I don’t the future as something that’s set even in God’s mind. I guess I feel comfortable calling myself an open theist, but that term is much maligned.
Just to add my $0.02 about conferences, in general. Having recently served my employer in our Leadership Development function, one of the reasons we send people to conferences is not primarily the subject matter (which is still important), but rather for the networking potential and the creativity that is spawned by hearing about the way other people do things.
Outside of those things which should not change in the chuch (core theology, primarily), there ARE things we can learn from experts that may not be Christian. I would venture to guess that at least half of my engineering professors in college were not Christian, and that a number of my professional development courses and mentors were not, either. As noted, though, influence goes both ways.
Perhaps, for example, even if Mr. King does not have a ‘road to Damascus’ experience at ReThink – what if he rethinks what “Christians” look like to him (the quotes denoting his perception, not their Christianity)? What if, as a result of this, his choice of Christian spokesmen on his show start looking less like Pat Robertson?
A set of book discussions I facilitated recently, on “The Medici Effect”, discussed how creativity and breakthroughs in technology and art tend to come when disparate areas of expertise are brought together in combination. This comes both through learning and through relationships. In this light, I don’t know that I would automatically discount ‘ReThink’ as superflous…
I think the use of “by accident” was more tongue in cheek than theological statement.
Neil
Mike,
I agree 100%. I just think that the ODMs jump to some wild conclusions before investigating properly. I know first hand that the conference is not going to be about redefining the gospel. It is rethinking how we communicate a gospel to a postmodern generation. Who better to talk to about that than lost postmodern leaders.
Keith,
You bet! We have 100% more important content. They have 100% more efficent ways to communcate that message to people. Someone should really create a conference where we can come together and collaborate. You know… to rethink how we share the gospel
Nathan: Point taken. I may be familiar with “Farris Beuller,” but I’m still a little old fashioned–I’ll stick with 1 Corinthians 1:21, but you guys feel free to talk, er uh, rethink amongst yourselves. You can’t go wrong as long as you’re working out of Good Material.
Neil and Phil: I’m pretty sure Iggy’s use of the phrase “by accident” was more tongue-in-cheek (isn’t that kinda like “accident”) than anything. I’m just giving him a hard time. That’s my job as the resident five-pointer.
Phil,
Open Theism is much maligned, unfortunately. But I don’t think without reason. I find OT as a ‘looks-good’ theology up front, with a quick glance taken at some favorite verses, but in the long term, I couldn’t defend it with the Bible, overall. Too many holes. It seems that OT is just another systematic theology that can’t quite get all the parts of the Elephant figured out all at once (Like Calvinism or what have us.). I’m fairly certain God knows the future exhaustively and dictates a large part of it. That’s how I see it in the Bible. Either way, even if He didn’t, you gotta agree, the Guy is totally Sovreign.
Joe
Joe C,
Yeah, it’s a construct of human logic, but that what we live in. I guess my main reason for supporting it has to do with the ends that it produces. I see the logical outworking of Calvinism as producing a dead faith too many times (not saying it’s the case for all Calvinists). It seems rather impossible, at least in my mind, to not take a fatalistic view if we believe the future is set.
The one book that kind of pushed me over the edge was John Sander’s The God Who Risks. To me it was so straightforward, that it would seem hard for anyone to refute most of is logic. I think also, he does a good job of describing the roots of freewill theism, which OT is a variant of. I thought he did a better job than Greg Boyd in many respects.
Mike,
This statement is pretty wide open… if you did not mean that all were redefining, then why not add that in the statement also. The conference is called “Re think” right? and you seemed to change it to “RE define” with that statment… it was in what you left out of your own statement that lead me to the conclusion I came to.
Also, you seemed to glaze over the other questions…
Now, are you opposed to all redefining? Then Luther who redefined penance to faith becuase he saw that it was wrong would be in the wrong.
Redefinition is not always wrong, but holding to traditions that are man made that disqualify some for salvation is very wrong.
iggy
Phil:
Disclaimer: Not trying to convert anyone here.
Comment: In my journey to reformed/Calvinistic/Doctrines of Grace thinking, I encountered some people that did indeed appear to have a “dead…fatalistic view”, but there are more, like myself that see God’s absolute sovereignty (even in salvation) as a plus. I don’t have to–not that it would do any good–worry about things. God’s purpose is set and it will be accomplished. I am comforted by the thought that He is in control, down to the smallest detail (Acts 17:26).
Joe C: I am certain that “God knows the future exhaustively…” and in knowing it–it’s a done deal. No one does an “end-around” on God. (I’m not implying you said that, just for the record.)
Keith,
With your same disclaimer, I’ll respond.
To me it’s more comforting to think of God as being totally responsive, and in time with me. To have assurance that when I pray, He actually hears and actually responds. I can see why validity in either view, but this is one that I find helps me the most.
I actually feel that the open view has caused me to worry less, ironically. Believing that God doesn’t necessarily have just one possible road for me, and that I am free to make real choices has taken a lot weight off of me, I feel.
Anyway, I’m sure it won’t be long until someone comes and tells me why I’m wrong.
Is that because the gospel has already been redefined? Didn’t Schuller already accomplish that?
If the conference were about redefining Schuller’s gospel might not that actually be a good thing?
How closely does Mcmanus’ gospel resemble Schuller’s?
Keith, the reason I said I’m fairly certain, and not totally certain, is that the Bible never says God knows absolutely every future event. It seems like “Occam’s Razor” and completely logical to think He does. I believe He does, as I believe He stands outside of time, but I can’t say that’s absolutely true like I could say “Jesus is the only Way” is absolutely true. I would need a clearly outlined narrative in Scripture showing that, to say “yes, this is absolutely true”, and I just haven’t seen one in reading the Bible through and through.
For all I know, God could be limiting His foreknowledge on purpose, and we’d be none the wiser, since He’s so much more infinitely powerful than us. But if God initiated that, is He any less Sovereign?
Just some thoughts. Not an endorsement. I’m not afraid to think, poke, jostle, and reject things that aren’t the primacy of the Saving Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-6). I don’t think any Christian should be. Such is Freedom in Christ I think.
Joe
Joe C and Phil:
I’m absolutely certain about three things:
1) I’m right and you’re wrong OR You’re right and I’m wrong
2) We both (all) can’t be right
3) When we’re standing in Christ’s prescence one day…none of us will care HOW we got there–we’ll be in awe of the fact that we are there at all. Grace greater than all our sin!
Well, I didn’t disagree with you Keith about God’s knowledge of future events.
But you’re right, that really won’t matter in the end. Only thing that matters is that He reached down from heaven in the Person of His Son and died for us, rose again, and saved us.
Joe
And all God’s people say…
Totally wicked awesome?
Erm…let me try it without my Boston vernacular…
Amen!
Amen! Boys, I think we can stamp “DONE” on this one and move on.