As defined by Webster’s Dictionary, it means to show false piety or righteousness, to be hypocritically religious or devout. Why does this adjective seem to be particularly apt in describing Ingrid’s response to Rick Warren’s invitation to attend Saddleback’s upcoming Purpose Driven Church conference?
To begin with, let’s assume that Ingrid was given permission to publish this invitation on the Internet. Let’s assume that she was not trying to gossip about this invitation and further her own claim as an online “discernment” force to be reckoned with.
Let’s also assume that her failure to at least thank Warren for the kind offer to pick up the tab for travel and conference expenses was . . . an oversight on her part and not indicative of a severe lack of good manners. Let’s even assume that she is right about being able to assess what Saddleback Church and Rick Warren are all about without having to actually go to Saddleback.
And finally, let’s assume that her assessment of Warren and his teaching as being “unbibilical” and having caused untold damage to churches nationwide is also correct. Although I do not agree with these assumptions, they are not the reason why I have concluded that Ingrid’s piety has to be called into question.
I call her piety into question because her refusal to accept this invitation for the reasons stated belies the fact that she is using the Word of God to model her behavior in this matter. As evidence of this, consider Jesus in Luke 7:36-50. Jesus did not turn down an opportunity to break bread with those he disagreed with, viz., the Pharisees. Their notion of legalistic perfection and outward appearances represented everthing that Jesus had come to denounce but that did not stop him from accepting a dinner invitation. We are not told why he accepted Simon’s invtation to dinner but maybe it was because he knew there would be an opportunity for conversation, an opportunity to teach another lesson about forgiveness, an opportunity to reach another heart.
Ingrid is apparently disinclined to follow Jesus’ example in this regard. She is too self-righteous, too holy, too pure to reach out to the ones she disagrees with, the ones who according to her, are promoting egregious error and in danger of eternal hell fire. Is she at all concerned about their eternal destiny? As a Christian, full of truth, why wouldn’t she jump at the opportunity to engage in a conversation that might produce repentance and a reversal of eternal fortunes?
Hence the charge of sanctimony. Her so called piety is nothing more than a sham for all to see. I challenge her to go to Saddleback, have a conversation, and if nothing else, share her light with the misinformed. Who knows, maybe one of the E’s in PEACE might come to stand for Evangelism. That wouldn’t be a big stretch Ingrid. After all, it is one of the 5 purposes of the PD paradigm.
![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")
156 Comments(+Add)
It is not about repentance or reconciliation… it is purely about judging and condemning through gossip.
It is not of Christ at all… the Truth War is an attack against Jesus the Truth incarnate and the want to replace him with human based “belief” in doctrines to save us. Ingrid teaches works righteousness and in not relying on the righteousness of Christ to keep us pure, but in make oneself pure and holy. This run against every teaching in the bible that states our holiness is like uses menstruation rags… or toilet paper. But, Ingrid believes if we keep ourselves pure, we please God. Again that is works salvation and not being saved by Grace and doing works out of gratitude and out of the love of God.
iggy
It becomes obvious through this that it is personal and not an objective and sincere disagreement. All of us have been angry or in judgment about somebody who then apologizes so sincerely that the reservoir of emotion and bitterness that we still had left could not be effectively let loose. We feel cheated.
So when you are so consumed with judgmental venum that you must avoid the chance that the people at a church where you have differences might be nice, might be accommodating, and may dilute you position then it is personal and you are not serving Christ. No one would ask you to change your doctrinal differences, but it might allow you to temper your personal invectives and put actual real people to what you write about with such buffered impunity.
Would it not have been a gesture of Christ if Mrs. Schlueter went with a nice gift for Pastor Warren and his staff with an expression of written love for them? Isn’t that what Jesus commanded us to do with our friends as well as enemies? Would that not at least show to the world who Jesus is in spite of differences?
And to print the offer and her letter of refusal just reveals a level of self righteousness that is both sad and amazing. I think sanctimonious describes the tener and tone of the correspondence completely. Please note people of Saddleback and Pastor Warren, the person with the loudest microphone does not always reflect the majority. That kind of excruciating sanctimony is rejected by most of us who would have some serious differences with Pastor Warren.
When you cannot even attend one service in someone’s church at their significant expense you have openly made yourself detached from the flesh and blood that is Christ’s body, the thousands of true believers at Saddleback that struggle to follow Christ, and all the many good things they do in Jesus name. Without a season of illuminating brokenness and repentance Mrs. Schlueter will continue to spiral further into her own isolated world of myopic judgmentalism.
It’s one thing to not accept an invitation based on a personal conviction. I really wouldn’t have a problem with that. It’s another thing to broadcast it for the world to see.
She has received her reward.
Rick,
Well said.
I completely disagree with Purpose Driven, and Rick Warren. But I would go to this conference. I would use this as an opportunity to share my faith, and my objections to purpose driven personally! I am still planning on going to Saddleback on one of my journeys to So.Cal.
I would go to Mars Hill (both), Willow Creek, Osteen’s church, and MacLaren’s church. I would go there with a discerning ear to the preaching, as I do in any church I attend that is not my own. I have already been to the holistic missional community in Minneapolis, and stated my disagreements personally.
I might even go to Reed’s church if I ever had occasion to be in Owasso.
Since I believe there are tares among the wheat in all churches, I would use the opportunity to share my faith in any context possible.
That being said, I do understand Ingrid’s reasons for not going. I support her in her decision! She made some very important points regarding the very public teachings of some of the Pastors who are there; and being a woman, she duly noted she would be seated under these teachings. Her discernment about this conference is valid. She is wise to watch it on tape.
“I would go there with a discerning ear to the preaching, as I do in any church I attend that is not my own.”
I hope you do in your church too!
(By the way, John, I just met an old friend of yours. I described you my arch-nemesis. He wasn’t sure what to think about that!)
Is it possible there is a fear that what she might discover is not as bad as it seems? Could it be that hearing these folks in their full context could reveal that there was an error in judgment on her part?
If Ingrid states that she does not want to subject herself to supposed untruths, then where does she get the information that she posts on a daily basis? She is either subjecting herself to it so she can post on it or depending on what others are complaining about.
my my my……..
I first thought that you were using the term sanctimonious as a self descriptive term. The tone of the post is most certainly one of pious bilge.
What can one expect of a blogsite that claims that they alone have the true joy of the Lord, are more intelligent, exegete scripture in a more proper way, LOL!!!
(I think I will use iggys obnoxious practice of interejecting numerous lols as proof of superiority) than anyone else.You look in the mirror and worship.
Did you know that a quick check of the blog rating sites shows that virtually no one reads this blog?
Seems no one here minds ganging up on a woman.I doubt Ingrid loses any sleep over it.
BTW
Warren is not a pastor/leader, nor biblical in any sense of the word.
(my earlier comment was addressed to John, aka Pastordude, not JohnD…sorry for the confusion!)
According to the server stats, we average about 2000 unique users per month.
Nice demonstration of sanctimonious on your part, though…
I already know what Ingrid’s response would be to Jesus breaking bread with the Pharisees in Simon’s house.
Jesus went to the Pharisee’s house with the understanding that He would have the floor and occupy the center of attention as the main speaker, not merely as a participant in a huge crowd. Jesus was invited to preach, which is not the case with Warren’s invitation extended to Ingrid.
Darren – I do not think that is it, I have seen videos of complete services so my disagreements would not change. But the arrogance of implying you don’t even need to intermingle with a legitimate part of Christ’s body and you can so easily reject a kind invitation reveals Mrs. Schlueter is controlled by self righteousness.
At least Mike Corley had the grace to go to Mars Hill Church and had the courage to alter his views, even though his conclusions differ from mine, I still respect his Christian spirit. People like Mrs. Schlueter would never have visited the Corinthian Church with the plethera of compromise that was taking place there, and yet, Paul did not shun them.
Let me quote the Apostle Paul to the members of the Corinthian Church:
I thank my God always on your behalf for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ.
Let us not forget to whom Paul was speaking. This was the suing, fornicating, divorcing, drinking, divided, and compromising crowd. And yet Paul loved them. That kind of love is sorely missing today in the discernment nation. It is needed but we must always be careful to confront teachings with humility and separate the sheep from the teachings. Love covers a multitude of sin.
Perhaps Mrs. Schlueter was apprehensive about showing up on YouTube walking into Saddleback. She would be ruined among her peers. The love of Christ often comes at the expense of our reputation.
Whops – sorry – my mistake, shammah, I read the partial month (March) when we moved to a new server. April had 5,400 unique visitors averaging 4 visits each.
We use a ‘nofollow’ list which impacts our “blog rating” on several of the ratings sites, but cuts down severely on spam and outgoing Google hits…
Pastordude,
I personally don’t have a problem with Ingrid’s decline of the invitation. It is the way she declined it, which is what the post is about.
“Did you know that a quick check of the blog rating sites shows that virtually no one reads this blog?”
I thought popularity was a sign of compromise in the ODM world. What a fleshly statement. I write for only One viewer and usually He is not significantly impressed.
Your approach was more correct, Rick – I should have just ignored him…
She was disinclined to acquiesce to his request…
She was unequivocally disinterested in embracing his extraordinary proffer…
Here’s a bit more context around Zan’s quote… it took me several minutes to stop laughing…
“And captained by a man so evil that hell itself spat him back out!”
I love it!
ben,
if fits you to post on this comment thread as the title must resonate with you! LOL! = )
ummm now that was as judgmental as one can be… I am a man of humor and I naturally laugh a lot! But if you take it as being superior it is the joy of Christ in me rising up that has overcome the spirit of anger that once held me.
But if it bothers you, I guess it is the Holy Spirit doing His work in you becuase of me.. and I am glad and humbled by God it happens! = ) LOL!!!! and I rejoice in it LOL! = )
I think it reflects your own spiritual condition more than showing your discernmentalist powers… which it seems you have none…
= )
You are like those who curse me for praying blessings and ending my comments with “be blessed”… if you really could see my motives of heart, I would be soooo surprised!
You made me laugh, and I pray you are also so blessed, = ) LOL!
iggy
IGGY – you cannot have a sense of humor, didn’t you know? That’s not being doctrinally sober.
I thought this would be a great chance to use the platform to talk about Jesus.
I mean, if all these people are so horrific and they take them to task at other conferences for being “ashamed” of the gospel, put your money where you mouth is.
Pastordude,
I think it’s great you would go. It shows consistency.
But gimme a break. You can’t support this decision by Ingrid. People can’t have it both ways when they “up the stakes” the way that woman does.
And…to be clear…I think PD sucks. However, I think you’d be surprised if you went to McLaren’s church. It’s pretty traditional and is representative of a pretty typical suburban mainstream evangelical church that doesn’t buy into this “emerging” stuff. That’s all Brian on his own.
PASTORDUDE,
If I could get you an invite, would you go? I will be there.
RA
INGRID: “He, unfortunately, has chosen to introduce an entirely new generation to a social gospel, rather than the exclusive message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is telling that none of the E’s in his P.E.A.C.E. plan stand for “evangelism”. This is wrong.”
RA: This is a perfect example of where, why, and how thises ODMS are not thinking or caring about truth. The horrid no “E” in the PEACE Plan argument. It has been answered again and again and again. THE WHOLE PEACE PLAN is an evangelism strategy. Read thr sub-heading “An Evangelism Strategy” in my article “What is the P.E.A.C.E. Plan?”
http://abanes.com/peace.html
Sad. Really, really sad.
Richard,
I might add that the opposite of the “social gospel” is apathy… or worse the “anti-social” gospel… LOL!
We are to feed to hungry, give water to those that thirst and visit people in prison… which Jesus stated, He would be in receiving that visit… Jesus in prison… have you ever wondered at it? = )
igs
Hey i had some friends from Saddleback, Devonna and Peter (I forgot their last name! LOL!) They were from Hawaii originally and working in children’s ministry. They came up to Shoreline in Monterey Ca. when I was their.
It’s time for some ROFLCOPTER!!!
Mrs. Schlueter – “You ignored the rules of engagement, in a fair fight I’d kill you!”
Zan – “That’s hardly an incentive for me to fight fair!”
Dave,
Loeved the LROTFLcopter!
Every time I read that sentence I laugh as I am condemned for my “uncertainty” by one person… and as I express certainty I am condemned by the same camp. I express blessings and am condemned, I point to Jesus and still am condemned…
Now some state I must be “conservative” in that bunch… but I am still GBA…
Meanwhile they distance themselves from Ken Silva by saying they are not responsible for his writings, yet are responsible enough to call the Body of Christ out and judge it’s members! LOL!
At times I laugh as I might cry…
iggy
Iggy, I hear you.
I don’t write against the New Age enough, so that means I must be part of the New Age conspiracy and I am condemned as a compromiser, liar, heretic, and a “new” kind of New Ager.
Then, I write a book against the New Age/Eckhart Tolle, and I am still condemned – this time for not REALLY condemning the New Age out of pure motives, but instead just trying to just make a fast buck and copying Warren Smith (yeah, right). In this entertaining scenario, in addition to being a heretic underneath, I am also greedy and hypocritical.
There is no escaping the ODMs.
Richard~
I would be there in a heartbeat. I would hope to have a face to face with Mr. Warren, so that I could discuss with him my point of view. I understand if he wouldn’t have the time, but I would love the opportunity.
ROFLcopter > all
Man… did I type that? LOL! (I am soooo superior!)
iggy = )
Richard,
I teach Jesus is the Truth incarnate and I am told I deny truth…. I teach that Jesus is the the living Word of God and the authority the bible has comes from Him as all scripture was written to point to Him and I deny the bible…
I teach we cannot detach biblical truth from Jesus and I am a heretic…
I teach that Truth is the Person of Jesus and not some abstract thought floating out there somewhere… and they say I deny all Truth.
(I just see that the concept of “Absolute Truth is not biblical in the sense that Plato taught the gnostic belief that abstract thought was more real than flesh and reality as we know it… it is to take biblical truth detach it from Jesus and turn it into “beliefism” which means we trust in our belief (doctrines) over the person of Jesus for our salvation. It reduces truth to “right belief” which is works salvation. It also leads to the error of gnostic dualism which it seems most ODM’s are afflicted with.)
But for all that, I am a heretic for fighting for the biblical definition of “Truth” being Jesus Himself….
these guys are nutz!
= )
iggy
OK. I find myself sad of late with the general tone of SOL, but I read this article first and then went over to SOL to read Ingrid’s. From the scathing review here I expected to read the most horrid display of un-Christian conduct ever unleashed on the internet, instead I found nothing of the sort. Ingrid is no diplomat, but she was given an invitation and listed her reasons for declining it based on her convictions, many of which I would agree with. PDL is a monster of a money making empire. Let no one forget that. Ingrid and her platforms of SOL and VOA have to be a thorn in the flesh for said economic steamroller. To have made the rejection public is problematic, but look at Ingrid’s position. She was caught between a rock and a hard place. If she rejected the invitation privately or just ignored it the PDL empire would say they made an overture but was rejected. Ingrid had to reply publicly. To assume pure motives from the PLD empire is at best naïve and the letter to Ingrid literally dripped with condescension, so neither “side” can claim the moral high road in my opinion. But like many here, I would have accepted the invitation.
Iggy said, “But, Ingrid believes if we keep ourselves pure, we please God. Again that is works salvation and not being saved by Grace and doing works out of gratitude and out of the love of God.”
Iggy, I find my self “with you” more than not, but occasionally your exegesis requires comment. Here you are conflating “pleasing God” with “acceptance by God”. These are totally separate concepts. We are ACCEPTED by God in Christ by His imputed merits alone as you have well said. However, our actions which either “please” or “displease” God have nothing to do with our acceptance. This is not works righteouness as you accuse Ingrid. Paul, John and others spoke much about learing to please God via our works (again nothing to do with salvation or acceptance).
2 Corinthians 5:9 – Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be PLEASING to Him.
Eph 5:6-10 – Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), TRYING TO LEARN WHAT IS PLEASING TO THE LORD.
Hebrews 13:20-21 – Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us THAT WHICH IS PLEASING in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 John 3:22 – and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
These passages have nothing to do with acceptance or justification, but with sanctification, i.e., actions that please the Lord. Again, two totally different concepts. It is NOT works righteousness to be concerned with how to please God in our day to day actions. My son either pleases or displeases me because of his actions. It has nothing to do with acceptance, love or sonship. But it has everything to do with fellowship.
JOHN: PDL is a monster of a money making empire. Let no one forget that.
RA: It’s a bit amazing to me how so many “Christians” see anything that is successful and has been blessed financially by God and instantly cry, “FOUL! It MUST be a money-making, greedy empire that’s sold out to mammon!!!”
You have no idea how much free stuff is given away to help the individual poor, the financially helpless and sick, struggling churches, etc. etc. etc.
Money is a thing – that’s all. And like any “thing” it can be used to to help or to harm. Just because something is financially prosperous does not make it evil. Although I could indeed see why it might make many people envious.
JOHN: To assume pure motives from the PLD empire is at best naïve and the letter to Ingrid literally dripped with condescension, so neither “side” can claim the moral high road in my opinion.
RA: Dripped with condescension? How about was a basic invitation worded with kindenss and excitement about an opportunity to meet and openly discuss issues. Again, we are faced with the ongoing question: “What are you people reading?
There is no winning.
Don’t send an invitation – Saddleback doesn’t want to listen to critics or respond.
Send an invitation – Saddleback’s dripping with condescension.
Don’t say the word “hell” – Saddleback’s not preaching the Gospel.
Teach on Hell – Saddleback doesn’t teach it enough.
Don’t contribute enough to charity – Warren is money hungry.
Contribute 90% of money to charitable organizations – Not good enough because it’s organizations Warren started.
Don’t say the sinners prayer – you’re just catering to sinners.
Say the sinners prayer – It’s not a good enough sinner’s prayer.
On, and on, and on, and on. Again, I say, this is not about truth anymore for the ODMs. It’s about a target they have picked, and a target they want to destroy, attack, and abuse. The only satisfaction the ODMs will get is if Warren were to believe, teach, act, preach, and do everything just like them. Any divergence from that is heresy.
And now, because I have DARED say this — I am a target too, no matter what I believe doctrinally, or how often I have defended and continue to defend the faith. My disagreement with the ODMs about Rick Warren is enough to brand me a heretic. Sad.
Richard,
Under other circumstances your points regarding the PDL franchise would get serious consideration and introspection from me. But after having to leave TWO churches over the last 8 years that bought into the PDL franchise’s church growth system (either that or be totally marginalized) your protestations are falling on deaf ears. And anyone who is not looking at how the PDL franchise is not being text book marketed is not looking very far. Pastors are “sold” at conferences and buy into this Zondervan franchise and put their ENTIRE congregations through PDL. That is often hundreds if not thousands of PDL books and video lessons at a pop, not to mention the packaged sermon series that go along with the campaign (also at a cost). Then you have RW cross marketing with numerous guest appearances on Fox (owned by the same man who owns Zondervan). Then you have the PDL website that markets everything from T-Shirts to daily inspiration messages from RW (for a price).
I am not a casual observer of this phenomenon, but have researched it AND lived it for the past several years, so, no, I am not very sympathetic to poor, poor Mr. Warren’s plight.
However, to your points in general:
“Just because something is financially prosperous does not make it evil.” – True.
“It MUST be a money-making, greedy empire that’s sold out to mammon!!!” ” – I could make a strong case that Zondervon is sold out to mammon.
“You have no idea how much free stuff is given away to help the individual poor, the financially helpless and sick, struggling churches, etc. etc. etc. ” – True and thank God for that and that “God causes ALL things to work out for the good for those who are called according to His purpose.
I do not believe any one man should be that popular. It carries with it many liabitilies including a built in insulation just by the sheer weight of its popularity. Detractors, hostile or not, assume an “envy” status as well as viewed as nit picking. It is difficult enough to be accountable without being so popular, so successful, and so powerful that you can implement any idea or any doctrinal view via the media machinery already in place.
It is not only Rick Warren who wields such power either. There are tens of millions of religious consumers who gladly part with money without much corresponding evidence of spiritual enhancement.
JOHN: But after having to leave TWO churches over the last 8 years that bought into the PDL franchise’s church growth system (either that or be totally marginalized) your protestations are falling on deaf ears.
RA: From my heart, I am sorry for whatever it is that happened at those 2 churches. Having said that, might I ask that you consider the fact that many other churches have NOT had such problems and that they have become vibrant, Christ-centered, God-honoring, socially-active churches that have brought many people into God’s kingdom.
I think you will agree with me that failure at 2 churches, or 10 churches, or even 100 churches out of literally tens of thousands of churches does not make for good reason to condemn a whole movement, Rick Warren, PDL, or Saddleback. People are sinful and fallible – including every person/church that takes PDL (or anything for that matter) and uses it wrongly.
__________
JOHN: Pastors are “sold” at conferences and buy into this Zondervan franchise and put their ENTIRE congregations through PDL.
RA: John, it is a resource offered. I attended CC for many years and I can’t tell you how adamantly it was shoved down my throat that I just HAD to buy all of Chuck Smith’s teaching tapes and go through them. Other resources are sold and marketed at other churches as well.
PDL is a tool, as are all related PDL materials. If you don’t want them, then don’t buy them. Christian bookstores are FILLED with all kinds of resources, books, Bible study plans, seminar aids, etc etc etc. PDL is just another in a long list. So what’s the big deal?
________
JOHN: That is often hundreds if not thousands of PDL books and video lessons at a pop
RA: And the objection is……? In other words, so what? If you produce some study aid, and someone else produces a study, and Rick Warren produces a study aid, and they all sell different amounts — who cares? are you saying its wrong simply because Warren has sold so many units???
__________
JOHN: Then you have RW cross marketing with numerous guest appearances on Fox (owned by the same man who owns Zondervan).
RA: Sorry, I fail to see how this is ungodly. Again, Christian bookstores are filled with everything from books to ______ [fill in blank]. Warren as been more successful than others – so?
________
JOHN: I am not very sympathetic to poor, poor Mr. Warren’s plight.
RA: John, you sound bitter and angry. And that is just as serious an issue as anything you’ve said about Warren, if not more so. I would hope and pray that you look at your heart here – for your walk – and not for any other reason.
I look forward to meeting you at Saddleback when you are there. Is the financial success of PDL and Warren the thing that is upsetting you the most? It seems so.
RICK: I do not believe any one man should be that popular.
RA: Well, I hate to ask the obvious, but: What if God feels differently?
He’s entitled to His opinion.
R: He’s entitled to His opinion.
R: Lol. I can’t believe you of all people actually said that.
Watch out – you’re next on the ODM attack list as someone who has dared say that GOD only has an “opinion” that is to be allowed. See, I can heresy hunt, too!
In casde you haven’t noticed, Richard, I do have a sense of humor. You gave God a “feeling” and I just went with it. Even Paul had a GOD GIVEN thorn to keep him from assuming too much about himself.
Every book that John MacAthur puts out is received by many as God-breathed as well.
Oh Rick, I know I know. I’m just bustin your chops. I thought it was hysterical.
Richard,
Actually, I’m not bitter. I’m quite a forgiving person. I do move on and **gasp** actually still pray for the pastors of those churches and have a cordial relationship with them.
You are missing my point. Congregations have no say in the matter (other than to exit) after the pastor has been sold, who then sells the deacons or elders. The Church Growth Movement of which PDL is a integral part is a man-made concept and methodology. It is marketed like any other commodity and when bought in to (and I mean that literally and figuratively) then dissenters, by definition, are the “enemy” and must be “dealt with” in one fashion or the other (”divine attrition” as they call it is one of the nicer methods of handling dissent). Dissention from the PDL game plan is not allowed. Scriptures regarding divisive folk are often brought in to play, except there is small problem: PDL is a man-made marketing concept, not a Biblical principal, so these scriptures can hardly be brought to bear on people who have a sincere problem with where their church is going.
Rick Warren “lost” me when he went to speak at a Jewish convention a few years ago, not to preach Christ – He was not even mentioned — but to teach them how to build better and larger JEWISH congregations with the CGM methodologies (which I researched and found the report of off their own website, not hearsay). Rick’s techniques work for any people-based organization and is literally marketed to any and all. This is not how the scriptures say the Holy Spirit adds to the Church. One does not aid the enemy (and I use the word in the philosophical sense, not the literal).
Richard said “are you saying its wrong simply because Warren has sold so many units???”
No it’s wrong because the congregation has no say. It’s a done deal many months before they even know its coming. It’s a hijacking of gifts and offerings. “Sold”, “Units” again secular marketing techniques. You can’t escape the verbiage when talking about the PDL industry.
Richard said – “Other resources are sold and marketed at other churches as well.” I agree this is a bad thing in any circumstances whether it be Warren, Smith, et. al. So because others do it, it’s OK for Rick?
JOHN: Actually, I’m not bitter. I’m quite a forgiving person.
RA: Sorry, then. My bad, but it just doesn’t sound like you’ve let things go when you use phrases like, “I am not very sympathetic to poor, poor Mr. Warren’s plight.”
________
JOHN: “Congregations have no say in the matter (other than to exit) after the pastor has been sold, who then sells the deacons or elders.”
RA: This is actually a matter of ecclesiology for you, then, more than anything else. Different churches are run differently. If you want a church that is run in a way where the entire congregation has a vote in how the church is run, then go join a church like that. Otherwise, the pastor and church leaders make decisions about the direction of a church. And if you don’t like it, then leave and find another church that suits you better. That’s just common sense. You do not own God’s church, either corporately or individuality. God has placed shepherds in place to lead the flocks God has given them. If a member does not like how a church is being run, there are plenty of other flocks that are run by different kinds of shepherds in different ways. If may speak freely, it seems to me that your complaint, TBH, is not about PDL per se, as much as it is about how miffed to are that at some churches the congregations have a limited voice in how the church is run. In response, you attack Warren and PDL because YOU did not like how the leaders at two of your former churches made decisions to go a certain way you did not like. So, let’s be very clear about what has happened.
________
JOHN: The Church Growth Movement of which PDL is a integral part ……
RA: Stop. Wrong. No. Sorry. Untrue. Myth/Gossip. Rick Warren has explained: “In the early 1980s, I used the term ‘church growth’ because that was what everybody was familiar with. But I stopped using the phrase around 1986 because of the things I didn’t like about the church growth movement” (see Rick Warren, Making Ministry Healthy, Christianity Today). In other words, Warren deliberately left the CGM more than twenty years ago because it was indeed focusing on growth. And that was not something Warren was interested in.
The CGM conflicted with Warren’s focus on church “health” as opposed to church “growth.” As Warren has also explained: “Warren has explained on many occasions: “[T]he key issue for our congregations in the 21st century is church health not church growth. Focusing on church growth is the wrong focus” (Pastors.com, “Rick Warren Interview,” August 2005). Warren has gone so far as to write an entire article titled Emphasize Church Health, Not Church Growth. And again, another article, Forget Church Growth, Aim for Church Health (11/10/2004).
I suggest you read my article: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE DRIVEN CHURCH
__________
JOHN: Dissention from the PDL game plan is not allowed. Scriptures regarding divisive folk are often brought in to play, except there is small problem: PDL is a man-made marketing concept, not a Biblical principal, so these scriptures can hardly be brought to bear on people who have a sincere problem with where their church is going.
RA: This is all ecclesiology again. Find a church that agrees with your views on church government or start your own church. The congregation, or more often a few people in the congregation, are NOT ordained to lead the church. If you feel so led, then again I say, go start your own church.
__________
JOHN: Rick Warren “lost” me when he went to speak at a Jewish convention a few years ago, not to preach Christ – He was not even mentioned — but to teach them how to build better and larger JEWISH congregations with the CGM methodologies (which I researched and found the report of off their own website, not hearsay).
RA: Personally, I also have not agreed with Rick’s appearances at these events. But just because I disagree with him on this point (and others), it does not mean I see him as heretical, compromising, unbiblical, or some kind of underhanded deceiver. My goodness, where will that leave any of us?
I’m only aware of three times that RW has spoken at Jewish functions, as follows: Jan. 2006: Synagogue 3000; June 2006: Sinai Temple’s Friday Night Live; Dec. 2007 – Annual Reform Movement convention. I haven’t spoken to Rick about these appearances (much like I haven’t spoken to him about the billions of other places he has preached, taught, or done interviews). And, TBH, I’m not sure why he thought it best to speak at these events. What I DO know, however, is what he believes regarding salvation — i.e., it is through Jesus Christ alone. In apologetics/discernment, you do not throw out what is clear, in favor of what is obscure or gray. That is a bad way to do apologetics. (This could develop into a full-blown teaching in itself about HOW to properly discern and do apologetics. Hmmmmm.)
So, we have some very plain/bold statements from Warren on salvation, and many teachings from him in many places that make his views of salvation crystal clear (the most recent teachings being this year at Saddleback, see mp3 clips on my website). So, whatever he is doing with Jews is somehow going to fit into that paradigm of his — unless his paradigm has changed. But his paradigm has not changed.
Rick does everything for a reason. And if I were to make a guess, I would guess that he is somehow seeing it as a backdoor to Christian evangelism. A seriously subtle BACK DOOR since one of the most hostile communities to Christianity is Judaism. He might feel that if people can at least come from an atheistic worldview into a theistic worldview, then the next step is the Christian worldview. (There are a LOT of Jewish atheists out there who would be far more inclined to going back to synagogue, than going to a Christian church). Warren MIGHT be thinking that if he can get them to a synogogue, then maybe he can eventually get them into a church (or some Christian who they meet can get them into a church).
These are just my musings. But I think my thoughts are based on knowing Rick and how Rick does things. His over-arching reason for just about EVERYTHING is evangelism — which was something he inherited form his #1 mentor, his father, Jimmy Warren.
____________
JOHN: No it’s wrong because the congregation has no say.
RA: Ecclesiology, Ecclesiology, Ecclesiology, Ecclesiology, Ecclesiology, Ecclesiology. Don’t blame Warren for a method of church government that is widespread. Find a church w/ a church government mode you embrace, and join it. Or start your own church where the entire church votes.
_____________
JOHN: So because others do it, it’s OK for Rick?
RA: No, my point, which you missed, is that there is nothing wrong with selling materials!
RICHARD: “And if you don’t like it, then leave and find another church that suits you better.”
Thank you Richard for so succinctly reiterating PDL’s “love it or leave it” approach to discourse which appears to be one of your core values.
RICHARD: “If may speak freely, it seems to me that your complaint, TBH, is not about PDL per se, as much as it is about how miffed to are that at some churches the congregations have a limited voice in how the church is run. In response, you attack Warren and PDL because YOU did not like how the leaders at two of your former churches made decisions to go a certain way you did not like. So, let’s be very clear about what has happened.”
Wow, dude you are **good**. I don’t know how much RW is **not** paying you, but it’s not enough. You managed to tell me to “hit the road” if I don’t like it **and** malign my character all in the same breath. That pretty much sums up the treatment anyone who dissents can expect from the PDL franchise HQ.
RICHARD: “JOHN: The Church Growth Movement of which PDL is a integral part … RA: Stop. Wrong. No. Sorry. Untrue.”
Richard, Rick Warren is the poster child for the Church Growth Movement all after-the-fact protestations aside.
These things are cyclical and even predictable. The danger is to get caught up with either crusading against them and/or letting them gain a place of discomfort in your heart. Praying for Rick Warren helps as well as being honest about the many good things he does (and his wife).
The real challenge is to presnt Biblical principles as we see them and make application without being prideful or caustic towrd others. Thisis more difficult than we would imagine. Rick Warren is a warm and big hearted Christian who is also a family man and has a real and substantive burden for world wide missions and the plight of the poor.
The disagreements we may have are real and important but we must maintain our humble walk before Christ while addressing them. I will not give an account for Rick Warren one day, but I will answer for me. And not just the me that “stands for truth” against the teachings of others, but the me that “lives truth” in my personal life as it is held up against the life of Christ. I tend to be better at the former many times.
John,
I’d be interested in hearing a Biblical case for engaging in obstructionist tactics designed to prevent an eldership from leading a church in the way they’ve decided to lead the church.
Good point, Tim. Very good point. (The blind squirel principle)
Rick,
What’s the blind squirrel to nickel/spittoon exchange rate?
To Tim’s point. If an elder body is moving in a direction a member finds offensive and unbiblical, after they meet with and graciously present nhis differences, he has two options.
1. He can receive it from the Lord that he is supposed to submit and joyfully join in accomplishing God’s glory in that church.
2. He can leave the church in a humble and gracious way which usually means refraining from saying anything negative to any sheep.
Both options require much sacrifice of self and do not come without pain.
RICHARD: “Rick does everything for a reason. And if I were to make a guess, I would guess that he is somehow seeing it as a backdoor to Christian evangelism. A seriously subtle BACK DOOR since one of the most hostile communities to Christianity is Judaism. He might feel that if people can at least come from an atheistic worldview into a theistic worldview, then the next step is the Christian worldview. (There are a LOT of Jewish atheists out there who would be far more inclined to going back to synagogue, than going to a Christian church). Warren MIGHT be thinking that if he can get them to a synogogue, then maybe he can eventually get them into a church (or some Christian who they meet can get them into a church).”
Good grief Richard give me a minute to clear my head. The room keeps spinning from all the *spin* I just worked my way through. Let me get this straight, I am going to show Christ Denier Group “X” (Mormon, Jew, fill in the blank) how to grow Christ Denier Group Assemblies using my proven marketing techiques in the hope that ** Hyper ** Christ Deniers may at some undetermined point go to the ** Nominal** Christ Deniers’ assemblies which could possibly, maybe, sometime, cross-our-fingers hopefully, be used as a spring board to get them where they will accept Christ.
Boy, I guess I was totally off base in that assessment.
Gal – 1:10 – For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
God’s charge to all His ministers: 2 Tim 4:2 – “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.”
Preach the ** word ** in season and out of season, not a marketing technique that will grow Jewish and Mormon congregations just assuredly as a Christian one.
I took point two in my PDL-going church.
John – look at it this way. I believe Rick says to himself that if I insist that I can preach Christ they will not invite me. But if I go maybe some there might buy my book or listen to me on TV saome day and hear the gospel. It’s not that complicated, however I believe it is fundamentally wrong even for from an Arminian viewpoint.
One liability is that if we continue to go that route we become changed and usually the sharpness of the gospel suffers as well. Persecution must come and is a sacred privilege. Another liability is that some of the millions of people who like Rick Warren may get the impression that these people serve the same God. That has already happened.
So I can understand RW motives but they are on some level unbiblical. If God can preach His gospel in the heathen palace withour our help He can accomplish his will though our faithfulness, not over strategizing.
John,
Please be careful, brother. You quoted Gal. 1:10, which seems to indicate that you believe Mr. Warren is seeking the praise of men, not his God. As Rick aptly pointed out above, neither you nor I will give an account one day for Rick Warren’s conduct. But we are accountable to one of the most clear cut commands in the Bible not to judge another man’s servant.
I get the sense that you believe that you are speaking the truth in love. But some of it is coming across as accusatory. Please be careful.
Shalom
…and maybe elaborate a little. As much as I see problems with PDL, I can’t deny that lives are honestly changed by it. I see issue with any one work of a man becoming a study point rather than purely the word. In the church I attended, it was so much Willow creek this, PDL that etc. and we ended up having a “ministry expo” that was a clown short of a circus carnival.
Long story short I saw an issue since it was preached with the 40 days and it changed having set services and complaints from not having the “worship team” standing in the best order and must have X rehurals each week etc and were in the end told in more words “if you don’t like it, find another church”.
RICK: “2. He can leave the church in a humble and gracious way which usually means refraining from saying anything negative to any sheep.
Both options require much sacrifice of self and do not come without pain.”
I chose Option #2 and was fairly successful at refraining from any personal attacks, i.e, keeping it stricktly to the theology and not the individual. I discussed the situation with friends and any individuals who later asked. I hope this meets with everyone’s approval.
John,
By your ongoing posts, imho, you show that you are indeed a bit frazzled and bitter about this whole thing. And, on top of that, you blatantly refuse to accept facts.
For example, you say, “Rick Warren is the poster child for the Church Growth Movement all after-the-fact protestations aside.”
Well, that would be news to Warren since he doesn’t: 1) teach church growth principles; b) doesn’t advocate pure church growth; and c) has condemned church growth for the sake of church growth — and I gave you documentation to prove it. Here we have a PERFECT/CLASSIC example of someone basically saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts” (an attitude that permeates ODMs).
And as for your comment: “Thank you Richard for so succinctly reiterating PDL’s ‘love it or leave it’ approach to discourse which appears to be one of your core values,” this was a sharp retort, but nothing more.
I took the time to give a plain, simple explanation regarding your experiences in light of accepted forms of church government (ecclesiology). If you didn’t like that explanation, then that is your problem because what I stated is basic truth – it has nothing to do with any of MY “core values.” It’s just the way various churches are run.
It also was neither unloving, unkind, or unbiblical for me to tell you that this is how MANY churches are run – and if you don’t like it, then find a church that gives the congregation more power over the direction a church goes (or, of course, start your own church).
Finally, contrary to your assertion, “I chose Option #2,” I do not call what you have been saying publicly aobut Rick Warren and PDL (NOT EVEN YOUR CHURCH) as leaving your church in a “humble and gracious way.”
Nathanael: “I get the sense that you believe that you are speaking the truth in love. But some of it is coming across as accusatory. Please be careful.”
A sincere thanks Nathanael. It is easy to cross over from observation to accusation. (Richard’s blatant pronouncement regarding my motivations being a great example, but I digress). But as I can only be responsible for my own actions I will try to keep it to fruit inspection and not discernment of heart motivation.
And regarding fruit inspection, it is undeniable (and a good thing) that the Saddleback Church network does perform many, many undeniable acts of charity and love and has many thousands of fine Christian people serving God under its umbrella. But this same church also sponsors a ‘Hollywood Glitz and Glamour” night for their singles – the antithesis of everything the Bible teaches about not loving the world. Do not things such as this indicate a tremendous failure of the comprehension of basic Biblical principals? Are not things like this perhaps indicative of the lack of depth of teaching at Saddleback (one of their critics loudest complaints)? Where were the elders on that one? On one level, what Saddleback does is no business of mine as a non-member. But it doesn’t stop at Saddleback. They export these types of ideas. They sell them in their books, on their websites and word of mouth at conventions. And is this an isolated incident of bad judgment? I don’t think so.
Further Mr. Warren does appear to be a decent and kind individual who has accomplished much “good”. Further, I in no way insinuate that he is not saved, I just believe that in his quest for whatever he is trying to accomplished he has exchanged God’s methodology for man’s. That is the core of the issue.
PDL is a business. It is a franchise by any definition of the word. It creates cookie-cutter churches with its systems and methodologies which are packaged and sold like any Tony Robbins program. Richard said that RW can’t be responsible for what pastors do with his materials. But give me a break, RW **sells** full and complete sermons on one of his websites, but he’s not responsible when some poor RW wanna-be plagiarizes his materials? Further, the PDL system “works”. It will work for 1st Mormon or 1st Synagogue just as well as it works for 1st Baptist. Does that not cause anyone to stop a minute and ponder what is going on?
Yes, I like anyone else, can get in the flesh sometimes and discernment can cross over into personal attacks. I really try to avoid that. And I for one do try to take constructive criticism and reassess and apologize where needed. But I’m not going to be silenced by such accusations when so much is at stake.
The
RICHARD: “And, on top of that, you blatantly refuse to accept facts.”
“Facts” Richard please. Must I go and dig up all of Rick’s continued associations and mentoring from Schueler and Hybels, et. al.? I’m not denying Warren wrote those articles. “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”
Richard, “I am not bitter”. I have stated in writing over and over. Why won’t you believe me?
I’m not a huge fan of the PDL stuff, but I’ve always thought Warren seemed like an upfront guy. I don’t think he’s operating with some sort of hidden motive. I just think he’s arrived at the place he is because he’s naturally charismatic and a lot of people like him.
As far churches splitting over PDL stuff goes; I can’t deny it happens. Being a pastor’s son, I have to admit my bias is usually with pastors. I have seen pastor trying to get people in a congregation to change their thinking, and it just seems like an uphill battle. Some people get such a mindset that “this our church, this is they it’s been, and we don’t need to change for anyone”. So pastors get desparate, and they start looking for any glimmer of hope they can get. I think the PDL stuff offers a lot of pastors some hope. I beleive anyone would get desperate if his source of income was dependant on an aging congregation.
I think that a lot of these small churches will have their way in the end. They will simply refuse to change and die off. I’m not saying that adapting to PDL is the remedy, but congregations that don’t adapt will die.
“It’s just the way various churches are run” – Yes, when church’s are businesses and not communities you don’t care who is going out the backdoor because others are coming in the front door.
P.S. Richard – I am not bitter.
TIM: “John, I’d be interested in hearing a Biblical case for engaging in obstructionist tactics designed to prevent an eldership from leading a church in the way they’ve decided to lead the church.”
Well all-righty then. So “discussion” is now re-defined as “obstructionist tactics” in the Tim Reed Book of Rules? And “Protestant Elder Board” is now redefined as “The Magisterium “? Who knew?
That’s about as fair as characterizing those who leave a church because the elders have decided to go in a PDL direction as selfish children more interested in tradition than the gospel.
JOHN: (Richard’s blatant pronouncement regarding my motivations being a great example, but I digress).
RA: I said you sounded bitter. And I think others would agree with me. BUt after you stated you were NOT bitter, I even added: “Sorry, then. My bad, but it just doesn’t sound like you’ve let things go when you use phrases like, “I am not very sympathetic to poor, poor Mr. Warren’s plight.” Did you miss that?
_________
JOHN: But this same church also sponsors a ‘Hollywood Glitz and Glamour” night for their singles – the antithesis of everything the Bible teaches about not loving the world.
RA: You have utterly misapplied 1 John 2:15-16: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.”
This is one of the more ironic things that I see when it comes to Warren’s critics – ODMS especially. They cry foul over anyone’s “misuse” of the Bible, but then turn around and misuse it themselves, taking scriptures out of context and applying them where they were never meant to be applied. This is a perfect example.
1 John 2:15-16 has nothing to do with needing to avoid a a night of fellowship, fun, and food based on the glitzy and glamorous lifestyle of a particularly visible modern-day industry based on entertainment!! In fact, Hollywood – despite its infamous debauchery, carnality, and greed – has produced some terrifically poignant and thought-provoking films. And, as surprising as this may be to many Christians – yes, there are a lot of Christians who work in Hollywood at varying levels in in different occupations. Anyone remember a certain someone we worship talking about being salt and light in the world??? Oh, yeah, that would be Jesus (Matthew 5:13-16).
Now, back to 1 John 2:15-16, “the world” here is basically the entire order of life on this fallen, depraved planet, which is controlled by lusts, greed, sin, self, pride, and all manner of sin. It is the whole evil system in which we live – the dominion of Satan, rather than the dominion of God. THIS is not to be loved. But that doesn’t mean you can’t listen, look at, appreciate, or enjoy certain ASPECTS of life in this world that do not go against scripture. I mean, let’s be honest, if I dress up like Spock and go to a SciFi convention, that really has no bearing on my Christianity, nor does it mean I love the world!
I hope you see my point. Verses such as 1 John 2:15-16, as well as passages like 2 Corinthians 6:17, have been used by numerous cults as an excuse to not take medicines, listen to no music except that which is approved by the cult leader, don’t watch TV, see no movies, wear no colors except black or grey, not grow mustaches, shun teh use of zippers and buttons (I kid you not), and all; manner of legalism. Where does it end? Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with having a fun get together for singles where they can dress up and drink some punch, have a few cookies, dance, and talk. Goodness.
1 John 2:15-16 is not talking about any glitz and glamour night. It’s dealing with the deeply serious issue of pursuing the sinful trappings of the world’s system, and loving THOSE things instead of loving God. Specifically, John deals with the three areas that for him were marks of paganism: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. SO, in other words we might say, for simplicity sake, pursuing and loving the trappings of carnal/sin-nature-based pleasures or desires), the trappings of what we observe and covet, and the trappings of arrogance (and the issues that result from that kind of self image).
_________
JOHN: But give me a break, RW **sells** full and complete sermons on one of his websites,
RA: And do you know why he **sells** them? It’s so pastors in third world countries who have no money can receive them and other materials for free, and the selling helps defer costs to take care of those expenses. That’s the first reason. The second reason is to help pastors who are experiencing difficult times and want a sermon to help them – they use concordances, Bible dictionaries, Word Studies, and all kinds of other resources. Why can’t they also use a sermon outline from another pastor?
________
JOHN: Richard said that RW can’t be responsible for what pastors do with his materials. . . . but he’s not responsible when some poor RW wanna-be plagiarizes his materials?
RA: Is God responsible when cult leaders abuse his Bible? Anyone can take ANYTHING and misuse it for evil — even God’s holy, perfect Word!!! How much easier do you tihnk it would be for someone to take something produced by a mere man and misuse that? So, now suddenly we are going to make every person guilty of something they say that someone else takes and misuses? C’mon, John. Give me a break. Don’t tie the sins of other people around Rick Warren’s neck because you need to blame someone.
JOHN: “Facts” Richard please.
RA: My “Facts” comment if you read again, is in reference to your rejection of the clear documentation that explains: 1) Warren left the CGM years ago; and 2) Warren’s actual teachings do NOT advocate growth for the sake of growth, which is what the CGM is all about.
_______
John: I’m not denying Warren wrote those articles. “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”
RA: True – you’re just denying what they say and their validity. Not much of a difference, except for the fact that in NOT denying the articles exist, while saying they are not true, you are in effect calling Warren a liar.
_______
JOHN: Must I go and dig up all of Rick’s continued associations and mentoring from Schueler and Hybels, et. al.?
RA: ROFL! The old Schuller mentoring Urban Legend again – which has been debunked more times than I can count. MUST I direct you to all the facts surrounding that silliness?
I Peter chapter 1:14 tells us not to fashion ourselves according to our former lusts. That word fashion is the same word in Philippians says Jesus was found in the fashion of a man. The principle is clear, we shouldn’t look like the people of the world look like on purpose. If certain cultural appearances are not designatory of certain hedonistic groups, then they are not wrong.
But if our dress is to emulate Hollywood it is wrong even in jest. Holloywood is a sad example of people who are in the world’s system to such an extent they have adopted their own peculiar appearance. We should avoid that. There are greater sins though than appearance related things. Hatred, envy, greed, judgmentalism, and the ever present and always popular pride.
Rick,
Then why do pastors wear suits, the symbol of men of power and wealth in our society? If you’re going to condemn anyone for emulating the world start there, because it runs rampant in our churches.
That’s an old and responsive argument. As I said, if the garment doesn’t represent a particular sgement of a fallen society than it is a-representative. Many people were suits or ties who are not involved in power and wealth. It cannot be compared with some of the “glitz” of Hollywood.
I am not against pastors not wearing a suit either. And if a pastor purposely wears a suit to emulate those people he is wrong.
Are we back to the self-defined, nebulous definition of “world” that pretty much means whatever the user wishes it to mean? How does dress ‘emulate’ Hollywood? Can a Christian work in Hollywood?
It might mean you should move out of your mother’s basement, though…
RICK: But if our dress is to emulate Hollywood it is wrong even in jest. Holloywood is a sad example of people who are in the world’s system to such an extent they have adopted their own peculiar appearance.
RA: Sorry, but I gotta ask this with a bit of a smile: When did a tuxedo, or a dress with rhinestones become a “peculiar appearance”?” Seriously, you think red carpet attire is “peculiar”? Hmmm. I really don’t know what to say.
A suit and tie is exactly representative of power and wealth. What else have you ever seen CEOs, and Presidents wearing?
A suit & tie, for as long as I can remember, has always reminded me of business, power, and wealth. And one of the most corrupt/sinful systems in the world that is the epitome of the world is business.
What I am seeing is a LOT of subjective ideas, notions, and feelings that are being elevated to a place where those subjective ideas, notions, and feelings become a kind of biblical standard for condemning others – under the facade of passages like 1 John 2:15-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:17.
I thought the entire purpose of that gathering was to lokk “Hollywoodish”.
BTW – I have no subjective ideas, notions, or feelings – only Biblical standards.
Also I condemned no one, just a disagreement which came just before the official ban.
I wear flip-flops to church so I can emulate Jesus. But the legalists in my church get bent out of shape. hmmmmm?
RICK:
RA: “Hollywoodish” – I thought that just meant dressing up in your finest and being more glitzy than average. (And this comes from someone who has lived, worked, and been to Hollywood parties). I wouldn’t necessarily call that “peculiar,” nor can I see how that is somehow showing “love” for the world (TBH, I can’t even believe we are having this conversation – lol).
__________
RICK: BTW – I have no subjective ideas, notions, or feelings – only Biblical standards.
RA: Well, not that I am accusing you of this, but that’s pretty much what a lot of cult leaders have said in response to people questioning their restrictions on clothing, food, sleep, marriage, and all kinds of things.
CHRIS: I wear flip-flops to church so I can emulate Jesus.
RA: NO. Hippies and Calif. beach surfer bums where flip-flops, so you are emulating and advocating drug use and laziness. Repent.
That statement was sarcasm, usually recognized by moderately humoristically sophisticated people. You must pay closer attention, R., I judge people according to their humor!
For the record I am in favor of women dressed as the Texas cult women and we men like Rick Warren. That, my friends, is real Christianity!
Rick… don’t forget you are a acquired taste as far as humor…. at times…
But note be it joking or not… Richard’s response had some wisdom in it.
Now, if you preach in Hawaii… or wear as suite… they will not listen to you. That would mean you are an “outsider”.
Yet, in Haiti, if you were to wear shorts (no matter how hot it was) they would think you childish as only children wear short pants… men wear long pants ( no matter how hot it was).
So we must often, just for business take into consideration the culture we are reaching.
Many men in Montana do not have ties anymore. In my family the old men might or they will wear bulo’s… but the younger men… (us 40ish types) might show up in our nicest t-shirts and cleanest jeans and no one thinks about it as they are happy that person showed up!
I was told to cut my hair at a AoG church to look more “official” as a minister. Yet, I then saw the man who was my mentor go on to commit adultery and lose his wife, family and ministry… so having short hair made no difference. He wore suites when he preached also! = )
iggy
PC still not very stable… but so far it is better than it was. = I
Mom is still in the hospital and my job is now talking lay offs…
= I
Rick,
Since I get condemned when I express humor. I doesn’t surprise me at all that I’d also get slammed when I take something as serious, and then be accused of not being “moderately humoristically sophisticated.” It’s hard to keep up sometimes. but in the end, it really doesn’t seem to matter which direction I ever go, I’ll always give the wrong answer.
Oh, BTW, if you want to see people with no sense of humor – I have a list of ODMs for you.
Data – “Humor – I love it!”.
Sometimes humor keeps brotherhood alive when there are sharp disagreements. About keeping up with me? Relax, Chris Lyons is still in 1st grade, I continue to incubate the greatest expanse of my serotonin capacity due to the very real possibility of allowing self righteousness to creep in if I showcased the reality of my cerebral catacombs.
See, humor!!
(I think)
I love it, to call into question clearly anti-Biblical practices is to result in the good ‘ole “what’s wrong with people having fun” retort.
RICHARD: “1 John 2:15-16 is not talking about any glitz and glamour night. It’s dealing with the deeply serious issue of pursuing the sinful trappings of the world’s system, and loving THOSE things instead of loving God.
My point exactly Richard! Which is all that “Hollywood” is – an exact and laser precise metaphor for all that is wrong with the world system and EMULATION of and CELEBRATION of that worldly system’s values is in stark juxtaposition to what the Bible teaches.
“Glitz” – garish, brilliant showiness.
“Glamour” – Alluring beauty or charm (often with sex-appeal)
Hmmm what does the Bible have to say about those things? So spin away, sir. Spin away.
James 1:27 – Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
There is nothing wrong with having fun. There is everything wrong with emulating the world’s system’s values in order to have it.
J: I love it, to call into question clearly anti-Biblical practices is to result in the good ‘ole “what’s wrong with people having fun” retort.
RA: You did NOT call into question anything that was “clearly” unbiblical – except to you. 2. It was NOT met with a simplistic ‘what’s wrong with people having fun’ retort.” Great lengths were taken to not only make some valid points of disagreement, but also to exegete the relevant passages.
_________
J: an exact and laser precise metaphor for all that is wrong with the world system and EMULATION of and CELEBRATION of that worldly system’s values is in stark juxtaposition to what the Bible teaches.
RA: I addressed this issue.
________
J: Hmmm what does the Bible have to say about those things? So spin away, sir. Spin away.
RA: Unbelievable. Excuse me, but where is dressing nicely in fine apparel suddenly EMULATION of and CELEBRATION of that worldly system’s “VALUES”!? I don’t know about you, but I can still wear a tux and not take on the “values” of every other person who wears a tux. I am almost speechless in the face of this kind of …… reasoning.
___________
J: There is nothing wrong with having fun. There is everything wrong with emulating the world’s system’s values in order to have it.
RA: TRANSLATION – There is nothing wrong with having fun the way I think are appropriate ways of having fun. There is everything wrong with emulating the world’s system’s values as I define such things in order to have it because in my own narrow world I would not be able to attend any kind of night remotely connected in any way with what I personally don’t like and what makes me uncomfortable.
Hey John, make sure you never go to a ballet, you know those girls wear all that tight skimpy stuff that is in reality nothing but provocative, sensual, and worldly. And don’t listen to classical music either, because you know some of the most debauched people in history were classical composers. And forget Opera, too. Don’t even go there. Wait, can we have a Broadway fun night!!! No no no, you know how many gay dancers there are on Broadway. Wait, how about …… no, forget about that too. Sigh.
No ice cream either – John Wesley.
Richard,
I think there is a difference in going to the ballet, a secular activity, and having a church sponsored party event where the church members are encouraged to wear their favorite tutu. Not only would it be questionable as the best use of Kingdom resources but seeing either you or I in a tutu would probably also scare the children.
There is nothing inherently sinful about “Glitz and Glamour.” I can’t believe I am having to even say this.
When I was in A CHORUS LINE on Broadway, we had a HUGE gala affair when the show became the longest running production on Broadway. My friend dressed up smart in black tux’s, our girlfriends at the time bought new dresses and some special jewelry for the occasion. We rented a limo – it was a BLAST!!!! It was glitzy and it was glamorous – for me it was a rare occasion. For Hollywood folks its everyday.
The thrust of a Christian glitz and glamour party is to simply dress up in one’s finest and enjoy a night of fun, excitement, looking your best, dancing, and fellowship with friends — which is exactly what Hollywood people experience on a much more frequent issue. Hence, the light-hearted reference to having a Hollywood night. Do you really not get it?
There’s NOTHING here about glorifying the sinful wickedness of Hollywood in opposition to The BI-Ah-BALS admonitions to not love the world. (RA shakes his head).
Glitz and glamour are sooo sinful..
hum…maybe that is why Solomon’s Temple was torn down… to much gold and stuff…
iggy
RICHARD: “When I was in A CHORUS LINE on Broadway, we had a HUGE gala affair when the show became the longest running production on Broadway. My friend dressed up smart in black tux’s, our girlfriends at the time bought new dresses and some special jewelry for the occasion. We rented a limo – it was a BLAST!!!! ”
John – When I was in THE SPRING GALA at Lynn Garden Elementary in Kingsport, Tenn we also had a hugh gala affair after the show’s one and only knock-out run. My friends and I dressed up in our best suits, we didn’t have girlfriends, then **YUCK**, but all the girls wore their best dresses. Some even had makeup! We had pizza and coke. It was a BLAST!
Good grief Richard. I’m not talking about what you do in your secular life. I’m talking about Church sponsored events and what the Church’s charter is and I can tell you it’s not to sponsor wordly themed events for spoiled, pampered, clueless American Christians to play dress-up and have a blast.
I think its hilarious that John blasts American Christians right after he references Church charters and Church sponsored events. As if those two things were any different than the cultural artifacts he happens to not like that have been incorporated into churches in America.
At some point we need to recognize that the church isn’t relegated to events that happen in a church building or at places the church “sponsors” or “charters”.
When I was a teen I attended a church that had ice cream socials – was that “worldly?”
What makes the events “worldly.” I suggest that this is an overused and abused term
Neil
As well, John continues a false dichotomy between secular life and church life… in this sense he plays into the hands of the modernist movement.
Neil
JOHN: I’m talking about Church sponsored events and what the Church’s charter is and I can tell you it’s not to sponsor worldly themed events for spoiled, pampered, clueless American Christians to play dress-up and have a blast.
RA: Church-sponsored events. Hmm, let’s take a look at this statement because under it can be placed: church picnics, potluck socials (oh dear, and the word “luck” is in there too, how worldly is that!), prayer breakfasts (why do you need to be entertained with food – just come together and pray), worship services where lights are dimmed for emotional appeal (just like lights are used in worldly theater), and the list goes on.
But, of course, John I am sure, has a whole list of church-sponsored activities that are biblical! And THAT is the measure of what is appropriate for all churches – what HE thinks is biblical under the heading of “Church sponsored events” and the “Church’s charter.”
We see this again and again among ODMs – their own personal preferences and places of comfortableness being elevated to what is and what is not biblical.
I am the church. John is the church. Richard is the church. The building or the payed staff 15 minutes from my house is NOT the church! John, you walked right into this one. Reminds me of my mom and I talking when I was young. I kept asking why our church couldn’t do something about a problem. She kept repeating over and over “You and I ARE the church, honey”. I didn’t get it then, but thankfully I have matured a little now. So what is a “church sanctioned event”? Technically, everything that you or I do. There is no “secular” or separate life when you are a christian.
Gentlement, where did I say the church should not sponsor “events”? ANYWHERE? No I did not. I said sponsor WORLDLY THEMED events. You are making wild extrapolations from something you think I mean based on your loathing of anyone who dares question anything. And Tim, Christians are supposed to have their own “culture” that sets us apart from the world. You can have all the events you want, but some events have a distinctive world flavor. I’m sure many men in our churches would love to attend a church sponsored Wet T-Shirt Contest. Oops should have put that idea out there. Well that cat’s out of the bag. Send me tickets.
John,
But doesn’t the whole question concern what a “worldly themed event” is? When I think of the world, or that which Christ calls us to despise, I think of materialism, consumerism, greed, sexism, pornography, racism, violence, the lust for power, corruption, and the other major forces at play in our world. I do not think of particular tv shows, songs, movies, etc.
Should we question those things? Absolutely. Sometimes, when we do, we’ll see the world, and other times we may even feel the breeze of the Holy Spirit.
Let’s put a finer point on it. Would you object to a church sponsoring a Mozart concert, put on by church members and open to the public? Is that worldly?
If yes, why? If not, why not? Really, when people object to the worldliness of the church, they don’t usually have a principled reason. It normally boils down to objections to low culture. If it was popular a hundred years ago, fine, but if it’s popular today, then it’s no good. But what does popularity have to do with godliness?
Oh, and do you *honestly* believe anyone would defend a wet t-shirt contest?
JOHN: Gentlement, where did I say the church should not sponsor “events”?
RA: Nowhere. And that’s not what any of us said. What we said, and I’ll say it again, is that when it comes to church sponsored events, you seem to think YOU have the inside biblical scoop on what is, and what is not, appropriate for church sponsored events.
_____
JOHN: I said sponsor WORLDLY THEMED events.
RA: Our point EXACTLY. You are deciding what is and what is not worldly based on your own subjective NON-biblical standards of what is and what is not worldly.
______
JOHN: And Tim, Christians are supposed to have their own “culture” that sets us apart from the world.
RA: And that’s EXACTLY what the Amish say when asked why they wear black, don’t use zippers, won’t use telephones, and drive buggies.
_______
JOHN: You can have all the events you want, but some events have a distinctive world flavor.
RA: To YOU, To YOU, To YOU, To YOU, To YOU, To YOU, To YOU.
_________
JOHN: Wet T-Shirt Contest
RA: NOT analogous since you have clear biblical mandates against lust and nudity, which would be part of the event. As far as I know, not a single scripture condemns a tuxedo and a gown with rhinestones on it.
Oh, and I hope no one objects to the idea of Christians having a party. Do we really want to leave celebration and joy to the non-believers? Is it a sin, in its time and season, to, quite simply, rejoice?
I hope not.
Misapplied hyperbole does help the conversation John.
Neil
Talk about an exercise in missing the point. I think Zan hit the nail on the head, and until John grapples with that point this conversation is at a standstill.
This is an example of a tactic used often by ODM’s – take something innocuous and try and insert something obviously unbiblical as a parallel. It’s a non-sequitur.
Neil
Mozart concert using John’s standards = worldly. Why?
- “Regardless of his enormous earnings, he frequently got into financial difficulties due to his excessive lifestyle.”
- His ‘Zoroastrian riddles,’ written in 1786, are ‘not so much arcane as bawdy’ . . . The riddles confirm Mozart’s delight in . obscene jokes.”
- “[Mozart] had expensive tastes and frequently aspired to their level and affluence, but failed. His joining the Freemasons in 1784 was very much motivated by the chance to interact on equal footing with some of Vienna’s leading aristocracy and most influential officials, rather than any lofty ideals.”
- Mozart died of syphilis
Obviously, any Mozart concert at a church would be an exaltation of horrific sin, worldliness, and lustful excess.
I rest my case.
While John’s examples of “worldly themed” are extrabiblical, I agree with the aspect of catering to pampered Americans. I think that when our church “sponsors” a golf league for example. I’d much rather w have a party and just be honest about it.
Neil
You say party, others say golf league.
It’s not our culture (or probably more accurately, sub-culture) that sets us apart from the world. It’s our love for one another. Your comment reminds me of this Derek Webb song:
The point, though, is that if it is ok as a Christian to participate in something outside of the building, then it is ok for a Christian to participate in something INSIDE the building. One place is not more sacred than the other.
btw, I run in my church building! Pray for me!
I never run in my church building.
If you happen to see me running in my church building or elsewhere be sure to call the cops cause someone’s chasing me.
Running – pfft, minor league stuff…
Growing up, my brothers and I played dodge ball in the foyer of the church building (at least until we broke too many of the missionary plaque thingies on the wall). We also set up a BB gun shooting range in the one classroom wing.
So, I guess church buildings do serve some purpose after all…
Phil, I bow in the honor of greatness! Chris used to play capture the flag in the dark when we were HS youth leaders, until an elder was playing and sprained his ankle on the stairs…for some reason it got canceled…hmmmm…..
NEIL – “Misapplied hyperbole does help the conversation John.”
So Richard gets a free check on the hyperbole card and outright character slams and I get the reprimand?
MG – “Oh, and do you *honestly* believe anyone would defend a wet t-shirt contest?”
Yes. You must have missed the XXX ministry debates a few months back.
Wow – miss a lunch, miss a lot!
You really are kidding, right? Tell me – what part of your life is “Christian” and what part of your life is “secular”?
1) How is a party for singles (whether the theme is “Hollywood Glitz & Glamor”, “Star Trek”, or “High Church 1611″) worldy? (Please see this before creating your own definition of ‘worldly’)
2) I hate to break it to you, John, but 6 of the 7 major festivals celebrated by the Jewish people, commanded by God, were pretty raucous affairs, for the purpose of celebration – love for God AND love for each other.
3) Any event that members of the church put on is, at some level, ‘church sponsored’ – going back to the multiple points above that the people are the church – not just the elders, the staff or the building.
Just to point out – if this is true (and I’m not saying that it is or isn’t) and I was involved (and I’ll neither confirm nor deny it, since it would be disrespectful to the church property), the cancellation was not initiated by the elder with a sprained ankle, but rather some other busybodies who weren’t even associated with the youth group or that elder…
Please, John, let’s not slander the XXXchurch guys by making such false accusations.
RICHARD – “think YOU have the inside biblical scoop on what is, and what is not,”
Yes Richard, I do have an opinion, not that you sir have any of those. But, contrary to popular opinon, I am self aware that it is an opinion, but one hopefully Biblically based. I fully understand I do not hold the final word in Biblical interpretation and fully understand the difference between preferences, convictions and absolutes (and actually agree with general premise behind them). But yes Richard I do have opinions.
The second quote answers the first’s question.
NEIL: “This is an example of a tactic used often by ODM’s – take something innocuous and try and insert something obviously unbiblical as a parallel. It’s a non-sequitur.”
“Wet T-Shirt” // “Hollywood”. Hollywood values not in parallel with Wet T-Shirt contests? Do you really want to go there?
I’ll go there.
A theme “Hollywood Glitz & Glamor” suggests images like the Oscars or movie openings – typically tuxes/suits for the guys & formal dresses for the ladies. This is a far cry from “wet T-shirt contests”, which is strictly in YOUR imagination…
It still amazes me that Christians can sit around and condemn “Oscar Night” for being too worldly and at the same time claim that wearing suits and ties are somehow not exactly the same thing by imitating the wealthy and powerful. And do so with a straight face.
The last time I wore a tie into a church building was for a funeral…
Oops – I take that back – I wore a tie because I was on my way to a formal function about a month ago, but before that, it was a funeral
This thread is once again confirming H.L. Mencken’s definition of Puritanism:
I seriously do not get it. If having a glitz and glamour party bothers you, fine. Don’t go to that church. Don’t attend it. It’s still a free country. Just get off your high-horse about it.
I only scan Richards comments since they tend to be longer than I care to read… (sorry RA)… that aside, I have “reprimanded” commentors on both sides as well as even questioning fellow posters.
I will say, though, that I will be quicker to defend when our own motives are questioned – human nature I guess… I will try to be more consistent.
HERETIC!
There was a post a while back where an ODM made a parallel by saying “Let’s insert ‘child-molester’ here” – remember that? I forget what it was but it was the most egregious example of switching issues.
Neil
CHRIS L – “Please, John, let’s not slander the XXXchurch guys by making such false accusations.”
Chris, the question was regarding the defense of “questionable” actions by churches, specifically: “do you honestly believe that any one on this site would defend a wet t-shirt contest”. I said “Yes I do” referring to the commentors on the XXX church guys. I did not make any accusations regarding the XXX church. In everyone’s rush to condemn me you are not giving a fair reading to what I am and am not saying. I was commenting on their DEFENDERS on this site. And I’ll give my OPINION again. Is it such a stretch (no pun intended) to hypothesize that someone who would defend the use of a 12 ft. penis by a church group would have any problems defending a Wet-T Shirt contest?
Actually, yes, it is…
Well, so far no one has…
John,
THis is what you actually wrote:
There’s a strong implication in what you wrote that XXX Church has endorsed a wet t-shirt contest. Keep up this slander and I’ll send you a picture of myself in a wet t-shirt.
Tim: – “Keep up this slander and I’ll send you a picture of myself in a wet t-shirt.”
And I’ll send you a picture of me in a tutu.
JOhn,
I you go to the xxxchurch site, Wally the wiener was used at porn expos to challenge to people there not to abuse themselves. If I recall then did not use it at churches. That was spread by other people.
Again, I am going by memory… but I do recall them stating that. If you have absolute proof they used it at a church then show the proof, but let’s not use hearsay and gossip to further harm their ministry… ok?
iggy
Iggy,
I did not anywhere say they used “it” AT a church. I said it was used BY a church”. Further, I am not directly bringing in XXX church to this discussion but the DEFENDERS of xxxChurch. My original point was to say that in ** my opionion ** it is not a stretch to think that individuals that justified the use of a 12 foot inflatable penis might possibly have no trouble defending a christianized Wet T-Shirt contest. That is all I was saying in response to a hypothetical question.
Now does that ** infer ** I have problems with XXXchurch? It probably does, but a slam on XXX church was not the primary goal in my statement.
Further I did not say the “Hurray for Hollywood” event was held AT Saddleback Church. I don’t know where it was held. I said it was sponsored by them.
I will follow this discussion to some sort of conclusion or until all of us are exhausted. Obviously anyone can mis-speak, but I try to select my word usage with care and intent and I wish everyone would comment on what I actually say and not what they ** wish ** I had said just so they could have a stronger justification to attack my position.
I don’t like the xxx church. The PG-13 church is as far as I will go!
John,
Using logic like that I could say those that condemn XXX Church would refuse to do nothing about porn.
How about until someone actually does something you stow making nasty statements about them.
John,
Are you related to Amy that posts here sometimes? She likes arguing by giving hypothetical situations as well.
I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING NASTY ABOUT XXXCHURCH. I just made an obtuse reference to their display “thingie”. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.
NEIL: “As well, John continues a false dichotomy between secular life and church life… in this sense he plays into the hands of the modernist movement.”‘
Neil, you make me sound so . . . . abstract. BTW it’s considered rude in some circles to talk about people when they’re in the same room.
What is John going on about now luvie?
ZAN: “The point, though, is that if it is ok as a Christian to participate in something outside of the building, then it is ok for a Christian to participate in something INSIDE the building. One place is not more sacred than the other. ”
OK Zan, using that logic since the marriage bed is undefiled please let me know the next time you and your wife plan to have sex in the sanctuary. All things, even good things, are not appropriate in all circumstances. BTW what would you like the choir to be singing?
Tim, that was funny. No, really.
Thanks, I hope the Thurston Howell III accent I wrote it in came through.
Rats! I didn’t catch that, but it does enrichen the joke.
Tim,
Just promise to give me the appropriate props when you use me as an example in your next sermon.
John,
You’re going to have to do better than that to make it into one of my sermons. The competition is particularly fierce right now as my son does so many things that are illustrative.
Since Zan (short for Suzanne) happens to be my wife, that would be a bit awkward.
Regardless, you’ve just build a straw man hypothesis from what she wrote. Here is what she said (about a church building):
Using your hypothesis, I can’t think of any public building in which sexual activity would be appropriate, excepting a hotel (in which you are renting space, making it private).
To Zan’s point, there is no such thing as “secular” and “sacred” space. The Temple is no longer existent, and (if you believe Paul), we (plural) are the Temple (singular) of the Holy Spirit. Wherever a Christian is, there the Temple is, as well.
John,
Chris pretty much covered it, but I guess my question would be in the other direction. Do we live like God is with us wherever we are? Or do we act differently at home, or work, than we do on Sunday morning? If we do, then something’s amiss.
I think Christians live 180-degrees out-of-phase a lot of the time. We don’t need to worry about defiling that which is holy so much. We need to think about bringing that which is holy into that which has been corrupted by the enemy. That’s what the Incarnation is all about.
Phil: “Or do we act differently at home, or work, than we do on Sunday morning? If we do, then something’s amiss.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Zan,
Sorry about the gender mistake. Just didn’t know.