Look, I am fine if you have legitimate beef with Rick Warren’s programs. I am fine if you express realistic frustration over realistic issues with Purpose Driven. The problem is, half of the stuff on the internet from the ODMs is poorly supported, or over exaggerated. There is very little that actually has strong content against Warren. Here is part 5 of a series called “Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven“, as if it were one or the other. The title immediately told me where this author, Berit Kjos, was going. Here is just on example of the logic that these guys are using.

“Begin by assessing your gifts and abilities. Take a long, honest look at what you are good at and what you’re not good at. Ask other people. Paul advised, ‘Try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities.’ [Romans 12:3b, The Message] Make a list. Ask other people for their candid opinion…. Spiritual gifts and natural abilities are always confirmed by others.” [4, page 250]

They are? What if your spiritual gift has nothing to do with your natural talents or personal preferences? What if God gave you gifts that would show His exceeding greatness, not yours? In stark contrast to Pastor Warren’s view of spiritual gifts, the apostle Paul said,
[I Cor 2:1-5]
Did you hear that? God uses weak but faithful believers who will demonstrate His power, not their own talents. In fact, our own talents are often the opposite of our spiritual gifts. History shows us how some of God’s most powerful messengers served in total weakness, all the more demonstrating the amazing power of the Holy Spirit. Now as then, many of His servants come to Him as quiet, shy introverts who would fear speaking their name in a group and would shudder at the improbable thought of ever speaking in front of a group.

Wait, where did Warren say that your gifts are given to demonstrate your own ability and power? Where did Warren say that all abilities need to show how great you are? Oh wait, he didn’t. Nor did he say that your spiritual gifts and natural abilities have anything to do with each other, besides that fact that they are both confirmed in community. I am amazed how many times the ODMs will do this! Rick Warren says X, but they go on attacking Y — when he never even said Y! I am not up to speed in all of my logic rhetoric, but this sounds like a straw man argument. Kojos is attacking a premise that Rick Warren never stated.

He goes on to misrepresent Saddleback’s SHAPE assessment (which I actually think it is on the few useful tools in the PD program to help people discover how God has made them). Kojos again writes about Warren blurring the lines between natural abilities and spiritual gifts. He connects the A in Shape (discovering your “abilities”) with the S (discovering your “spiritual gifts”). The fact that Warren puts them in two separate categories says a lot. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they are different, but Kojos insists that natural abilities and spiritual gifts are synonymous in Warren’s mind. Here is one example from his article.

“Just start serving, experimenting with different ministries and then you’ll discover your gifts,” said Pastor Warren in The Purpose-Driven Life. “…I urge you never to stop experimenting…. I know a woman in her nineties who runs and wins 10K races and didn’t discover that she enjoyed running until she was seventy-eight!” [4, page 251]

So she discovered that she enjoys running races. But what does a new hobby or physical exercise have to do with discovering spiritual gifts? Pastor Warren’s next statement doesn’t help answer that question:

So, I looked up that excerpt in PD Life. The first part of the quote was in the first paragraph on page 251, the last two were in another. Plus, he failed to quote this line right before the story of the seventy-eight year old biker

I have met many people who have discovered hidden talents in their seventies and eighties. [emphasis mine]

Again, Kjos twists the quote to seem like Warren is saying that biking is spome type of spitritual gift. Warren makes it clear when he is talking about spiritual gifts, and when he is talking about natural abilities. And Warren’s whole premise for people finding their abilities is so they can use them for the glory of God. It’s ironic that so many ODMs accuse Warren of only using sections of verses to fit his agenda.

Again, I am not a Rick Warren apologist. But, if you are going to attack someone on an international scale in the name of God, please do so with some degree of legitimacy. I am tired of people using isegesis when “discerning” other people’s ministry. They come with a preconceived premise, and then extract anything they possibly can to support their claims.

**UPDATE**

Kjos is not a dude.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am and is filed under Hypocrisy, Linked Articles, Mike Ratliff, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

92 Comments(+Add)

1   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Well Nathan, Berit is not a guy, but a woman. :-)

2   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am

Selective quoting to redefine what someone actual said, is really no better than just outright lying.

Neil

3   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Nathan,

Having read a few of these articles, there are so many logic holes, ad homenims (particularly by bringing in the UN and other conspiracy favorites), false dichotomies (Bible-based vs. Purpose-Driven being the primarily abused one), and straw men that it brings to mind the old adage that ‘just because you have a pen and paper doesn’t mean you can write anything intelligent…’

The articles are so painfully written and easy to refute, I have to wonder why they’re being held up for such public ridicule…

4   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am

Go for it Chris.

5   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Begun, the Warren Crusades have.

6   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 11:04 am

Go for it Chris

.

Mike what is really interesting is that we “go for it” all the time. And it really gets us nowhere. The ODM”s screech about how right they are. How it’s their duty to warn others. When they are confronted about potential errors they respond with snarky phrases like “I spoke with the Lord” or “You do it too.” Then they self-righteously pronounce how they are so persecuted for standing against the great “falling away”.

This whole blogging thing has been an interesting study in human interaction and communication for me.

Rick Warren says, writes, thinks anything and the ODM’s about come out of their gourds dissecting it 6 ways from Sunday. Postings, Videos, Graphs, rephrasing of analogies, etc… Some of which are subjective at best and illogical (in the academic sense) at worst. For what? To warn others?

7   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Phil, awesome Star Wars hack. That’s all I have to say…:-)

8   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am

My friend Berit’s last name is spelled Kjos.

chris,

“we “go for it” all the time. And it really gets us nowhere. The ODM”s screech about how right they are. ”

And you whine about how right you are, so what?

O and as far as this: “Begun, the Warren Crusades have.”

Hey, speaking of “Crusades,” why not rip apart my last few pieces on Warren.

You know, the “Protestant” SBC pastor who is not protesting along with the Reformation doctrine he professes to believe.

That really ought to be fun. :-)

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Does the word “overkill” mean anything? I have major issues with Rick Warren’s program and was asked to leave a teaching position because of my opinion, however I find the elongated treatments like this to become rather tedious.

When you get to the point where you cannot say one good thing about Rick Warren then you have bitterness in your heart. Rick Warren does MANY good things and MANY people have been saved by his ministry. That doesn’t mean there are not serious issues about the PDL, there are. Very serious and worthy of inspection.

But after a while it tends to be self authenticating and beating a dead horse into glue. I want to see a ten part series about the powerless condition of the churches we all go to, including the “Bible preaching” churches.

If it were not for apostasy, compromise, and personal failures some people would not have any ministry. I believe those articles were written in 2004? And written by Mrs. Kjos with “input” by her husband. (no comment) I much prefer Mike’s Bible study posts.

10   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Good point Rick. Ditto to Mike’s (Ratliff right?) Bible study posts, I enjoy them. They are insightful and helpful. Not sure I enjoy the hit pieces though (as with anything); just being honest.

Joe

11   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

“When you get to the point where you cannot say one good thing about Rick Warren then you have bitterness in your heart. ”

He does have a really winsome smile. Whew, thanks Rick F. :-)

“I want to see a ten part series about the powerless condition of the churches we all go to, including the “Bible preaching” churches.”

Dude, sounds like the Lord placed that on your heart. Let me know when you get it written. I’ll definitely read it.

12   J    http://www.swrc.com
June 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

to anyone who thinks Warren is being opicked on

should read James Sundquist’s book

Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?

cause it is a intresting book on Warren is brining into our churches

13   J    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ_UtQ40s_0
June 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

say is Kjos the guy who does the website Understanding the Times are am I thinking of someone else

14   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

If it were not for apostasy, compromise, and personal failures some people would not have any ministry.

GREAT words, Rick, Amen!!

15   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

If it were not for apostasy, compromise, and personal failures some people would not have any ministry.

LOL! It’s kind of like the logic of using taxes from the sale of cigarettes to fund anit-smoking commercials.

16   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

to anyone who thinks Warren is being opicked on

should read James Sundquist’s book

Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?

cause it is a intresting book on Warren is brining into our churches

J,

The issue is not so much the content of Warren’s stuff, Nathan already addressed his opinion on that… as have I from time to time… the issue is the propensity of the ODM’s to twist, edit, and otherwise be dishonest with Warren material so as to attack it.

Neil

17   Nathan    
June 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Neil, good word. If the ODMs just critiqued Warren fairly, there wouldn’t be need for pages and pages of blog (and the word “heretic”, “apostate” and “anti-christ” would be used far less).

Ken,

O and as far as this: “Begun, the Warren Crusades have.”
Hey, speaking of “Crusades,” why not rip apart my last few pieces on Warren.
You know, the “Protestant” SBC pastor who is not protesting along with the Reformation doctrine he professes to believe.

Well, sometimes when you title articles “Rick Warren is saying Luther and Calvin Were Wrong”, your writings fall into the same category as the Lakeland revival… too absurd to deserve a response.

18   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

“when you title articles ‘Rick Warren is saying Luther and Calvin Were Wrong’, your writings fall into the same category as the Lakeland revival… too absurd to deserve a response.”

Are you serious?! This is your best response? Nice try at a dodge over my titles. Ok, let’s say my title is bad and Rick Warrren is saying that he agrees with Luther abnd Calvin while teaching the opposite of what they taught re. Rome.

Sure, that’s much better; but your own pastor Erwin McManaus holds the same wrong view of the Roman Catholic Church as Rick Warren does.

“the issue is the propensity of the ODM’s to twist, edit, and otherwise be dishonest with Warren material so as to attack it.”

Well boyz, I still await your awesome logic to show me where I personally have done so in my latest articles about Rick Warren.

Maybe the Body of Christ needs you guys to defend Warren from my “dishonest” attacks in my current series re. his view of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformers, who tried reforming that institution from the inside, were forced out and then labeled it apostate. Since Trent, it has not changed one iota in dogma re. the sacramentalism of their works-grace non-gospel.

And the RCC has not changed one jot or tittle regarding its view of justification, which the Protestant Reformers rejected as unbiblical.

Perhaps in your superior erudition here at CRN.Info you can enlighten us blind ODMs as to how Rick Warren is an evangelical Protestant while he denies what evangelical Protestants believe and says the Roman Catholic is not apostate but is a part of the Body of Christ.

19   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

“we “go for it” all the time. And it really gets us nowhere. The ODM”s screech about how right they are. ”

And you whine about how right you are, so what?

Thus my statement “It really gets us nowhere”

20   Nathan    
June 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

What’s wrong, Ken? Not enough traffic at Apprising, so you need more drama to stir up interest?

Interested, were has McManus come out in support of the Catholic church. I am fine if he did, I have just never read or heard that. I have actually usually heard the opposite.

21   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Ken,

Is it really helpful to use terms such as “Purpose Driven Pope,” “Purpose Driven Prophet,” and “Fuller Theological Cesspool Seminary ?”

Why not engage in helpful critique as opposed to name calling rhetoric?

Neil

22   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

“What’s wrong, Ken? Not enough traffic at Apprising, so you need more drama to stir up interest?”

I’m sorry Nathan but CRN.Info’s readership is nowhere near AMs. And what’s the matter with you, nothing you can refute so you resort to red herrings?

Have I misrepresented Rick Waren’s positions and been “dishonest” as you suggest of ODMs.

23   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Neil,

“Is it really helpful to use terms such as “Purpose Driven Pope,” “Purpose Driven Prophet,” and “Fuller Theological Cesspool Seminary ?””

Is it really helpful to ignore what I bring out re. Warren’s stance on the Roman Catholic Church? That’s the issue.

We can argue some other time whether invectives and/or adjectives I use are helpful?

24   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Nathan and Chris, obstinacy is not a virtue. We are called to be conformed to Christ, however, we road block that process in our obstinate clinging to compromise as if it is the “Holy Grail.” This only deepens spiritual blindness because it is a form of idolatry.

I have received a lot of emails about this series on The Purpose Driven Church from some who refuse to see the truth because Rick is such a nice guy. I’m sure he is and I would probably like the guy if I met him face to face, but I cannot be at peace with what the Purpose Driven paradigm has done to the Church.

Is this obstinacy as I described above? Not really since I am doing all I can to irradiate compromise from my own walk as I try to conform it to the Biblical standard.

These articles and Ken’s articles are simply an exposing of what is really said and taught by Rick Warren and others compared to what Scripture teaches. These are presented to make people think and seek the truth in repentance, not to smear these fellows, but to get them to repent. That is my prayer.

In Christ

Mike Ratliff

25   Nathan    
June 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Mike,

Like I said before… I AM FINE WITH SOMEONE EXPRESSING THEIR THEOLOGICAL VIEWS ON WARREN as long as they give a fair representation. I think I showed in this article that you have misrepresented what he believes and said by publishing these articles. When you cut up quotes to fit your agenda, make up wild claims about Warren saying Luther was wrong and then use crazy language like saying Warren is defecating on the reformation, you are NOT “simply an exposing of what is really said and taught by Rick Warren.”

Look, all of you guys would be much more well received if your language was not outlandish, you made fair critiques and people felt that your actual agenda was bringing beautiful truth to the people vs. simply attacking Warren. But, when an article like yours is full of obvious holes, you lose lots of credibility.

26   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

“When you cut up quotes to fit your agenda, make up wild claims about Warren saying Luther was wrong and then use crazy language like saying Warren is defecating on the reformation, you are NOT ’simply an exposing of what is really said and taught by Rick Warren.’”

Well Nathan, why don’t you show me in my last articles concerning Warren’s view of the RCC where I have done so. Because until you do this is exactly the same type of accusation you at CRN.Info say ODMs are guilty of and you condemn as unChristian.

You say I: “make up wild claims about Warren saying Luther was wrong.” Back this accusation up. Luther said the RCC is aposate and Warren says it isn’t. Show us then how this is not Warren in effect saying Luther was wrong.

Cuz Nathan I have a little news for you, when you make statements like you just did and when challenged to back them from my latest articles and you resort to red herrings like “defecating on the reformation”–NOT in my lastest articles–you lose lots of credibility.

27   Eric Van Dyken    
June 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Rick,

Of all the people and all of the websites, you as a commenter and this site in its continual posting on essentially the same stuff should be the last to point to others and decry a perceived “beating of a dead horse”. There is more glue and dog food around here to supply a developing third world country. As with most things on this site, the very same things that are railed against are practiced here regularly. (Despite that I tend to come back because I am enamored with reading peoples’ opinions).

Ken,

I agree with Neil. Your propensity for labelling and your namecalling are not edifying and indeed run counter to profitable discourse. I, for one, tend to see and agree with a number of the points that you make (though not all). However, I do not often read what you post and you often lose me because your tone is often not charitable and you seem to resort to namecalling to drive home your points. I pray that you would take these admonitions to heart, from one Christain brother to another, spoken in love.

Eric Van Dyken

28   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Eric,

I receive what you say in the spirit of love I do believe you intend, k.

29   Jim    http://www.watcherslamp.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Nathan,

The Title of Ken Silva’s post aside…

I would be interested in your comments regarding the content of the article.

If I may, I would research the roots of Warren’s SHAPE program before you put your seal of approval on it.

I, like J, encourage all concerned to read James Sundquist’s book

Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?

See more on SHAPE http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm

Regarding Berit Kjos…I suggest you visit her website to see the intense amount of research and documentation her ministry provides on several subjects.

Funny how so many are concerned about feelings but many have little concern for the facts.

Don’t listen to me, Mike Ratliff, or Ken Silva…prove why you believe what you believe with the Bible.

Do you own homework.

30   Mike Ratliff    http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com
June 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Amen Jim!

31   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I would be interested in your comments regarding the content of the article.

I got bogged down in the ad hominem stuff..

32   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

WOW – Warren uses the same words as Jung… he is a heretic!

Seriously though, attacking Warren because he suggests someone consider their personality when deciding where best to serve the Body based on Jungian psychology is laughable… purely laughable.

I, as an example, know my personality suits me to serve in an area other than, say the nursery… am I a Jungian heretic for considering my personality? Geesh!

Neil

33   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Neil,

“the ad hominem stuff..”

No ad hominem here for at the very least prior to the Warren quotes which are linked:

CONCERNING RICK WARREN

So defend that this misrepresents what Warren said and that it is consistent with Luther and Calvin.

34   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Jim,

Just a simple example from your examples posted:

The whole Jung thing is basically a page-long ad homenim attack – Godwin without Hitler. Whether it was Jung, Myers & Briggs, or whoever “discovered” personality typing is irrelevant.

It’s kind of like Columbus “discovering” America – America certainly didn’t come into being the day CC’s boat touched down. In the same manner, the trending in personality types is simply an observation of what God already created. There’s nothing ominous or demonic or sinful in utilizing observations about the way people work – in fact, it just is illustrative of a truth already conveyed in Scripture by Paul (re: the body having many parts).

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the wrong people volunteer for the wrong things in churches and secular organizations – all Warren tries to do with SHAPE is minimize the occurrence of this.

As for the rest of Kjos’ “research”, I’ve already summed it up pretty well early on:

logic holes, ad homenims, false dichotomies, and straw men

You’ve gotta wonder if she took lessons from Ken or MoveOn.org or the like…

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Psst… the “MoveOn.org” item was to give an example of ad homenim, lest you mistake it for a mistake :)

36   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Chris L.,

You made the point much better than I and w/o the sarcasm.

Neil

37   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Ken –

So Rick Warren’s “sin” is referring to brothers and sisters in Christ in the Catholic church as ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’?

Yeah – I’ll join in that “sin”… I’ve got huge issues with them, and I think the church, itself, has some major doctrinal issues. I would also note that many, like yourself, tend to distort and broad-brush many of the beliefs and believers within it.
Are there brothers and sisters in the RCC? Yup.

Are there people in the RCC who believe they will be saved by works? Yup.

Are there brothers and sisters in the SBC? Yup.

Are there people in the SBC who believe they will be saved by works? Yup.

The last time I checked, though, the fathers of the church were the Twelve and Paul, not reformers like Calvin.

As for the RCC, I’ll let God separate the wheat from the tares…

38   Neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Neil,

“the ad hominem stuff..”

No ad hominem here for at the very least prior to the Warren quotes which are linked:

CONCERNING RICK WARREN

So defend that this misrepresents what Warren said and that it is consistent with Luther and Calvin. – Ken

What good does it do calling a brother in Christ by a pejorative name? Is that not ad hominem?

Neil

39   J    http://www.urgentprayers.com
June 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I agree with post 29

40   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

So, Ken, whose blood is on the ground where you stand concerning Warren? I assume Warren’s since you seem intent on punching him in the nose every chance you get.

The lengths that people go to excuse a hatred of someone is astounding to me.

41   Nathan    
June 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I love how all you guys come on her and give the same stuff… look at the facts, if you just addressed the issues, etc. Well, I did. I actually went into my library and checked out all of the quotes that Kjos cited. Most, if not all, were chopped excerpts that were formulated to match what she wanted. That is not good research. I could make anyone say whatever I wanted them to if I did that type of “research”.

42   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Chris L.,

“So Rick Warren’s “sin” is referring to brothers and sisters in Christ in the Catholic church as ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’?”

No, wrong issue. I have clearly shown Warren is also speaking about the institution of the RCC itself as well.

“As for the RCC, I’ll let God separate the wheat from the tares…” Do I take this as a repudiation of the Protestant Reformation?

Because the Reformation was about God doing just that, if one is a Protestant. This is NOT arguing this with you, k. My point is simply, e.g. Luther and Calvin labeled the RCC apostate i.e. no longer Christian.

Warren says that it IS a Christian Church (individual RCs are irrelevant to this point) where Luther and Calvin stated otherwise. Warren is in effect saying they were wrong.

That you personally, and apologists like Richard Abanes, might agree is NOT the issue. My point stands even though you disagree with my premise.

This is what I am saying; I am NOT arguing with the FACT that there are individuals who are Christians within the RCC in spite of its false gospel. And it is a FACT there are unsaved people listening to a proper Gospel presentation who think they are Christian.

43   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Phil,

Did we take a little snide pill? “whose blood is on the ground where you stand concerning Warren?”

Have you ever heard of Hus or latimer or Rudley?

44   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Nathan,

“I love how all you guys come on her and give the same stuff… look at the facts, if you just addressed the issues, etc. ”

With all your big talk of your education I would have expected it to quite easy to punch holes in my articles about Warren and the RCC.

After all, you said: ” I could make anyone say whatever I wanted them to.” Well, I am but a high school graduate with no college on any level and I haven’t been to seminary. Show the world how I did that with what Warren says about the RCC. Um, what was that about addressing the facts?

Where have you or anyone else here at the so scholarly CRN.Info explained how Luther and Calvin said the RCC is apostate and Warren says it isn’t but he’s a Protestant evangelical while denying what evangelical Protestants believe.

My writing style, pitiful in your sight as it may be, has zero to do with how Warren is contradicting the Biblical doctrine – forget Luther and Calvin – of the Protestant Reformation our friend Richard Abanes shows us Warren says he believes.

45   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Do I take this as a repudiation of the Protestant Reformation?

No – I think that change was definitely justifiable and needed, and that the chances of it occurring within the structure of the RCC was slim, and that a break was probably the only option.

As is the case in many church splits, though, each side chose to demonize the other, each overreacting. The Reformation was not about God choosing to split the church – it was about men deciding it was the most pragmatically ‘good’ option available.

Luther and Calvin may have labeled the RCC as apostate – so what? Luther was a rabid anti-Semite and Calving was an egotistical murderer, though I don’t think either of these facts subtracts from the need for a split and their being in the right place at the right time, while also showing a clear fallibility in judgment in certain areas.

Warren says that it IS a Christian Church (individual RCs are irrelevant to this point) where Luther and Calvin stated otherwise. Warren is in effect saying they were wrong.

Disagreeing with Luther and Calvin (as demonstrated above) doesn’t negate the belief in a need for the Reformation. Two different decisions…

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Have you ever heard of Hus or latimer or Rudley?

Have you ever heard of Michael Servetus?

Just because someone’s willing to die for a cause (or willing to kill for it) doesn’t create carte blanche proof for or against that cause.

47   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

“Michael Servetus”

My patron saint.

48   neil    
June 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

You Roman you

49   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Chris L.,

“As is the case in many church splits…” I would see it as a lot more than that but I do not wish to argue, k. This answers my question.

“Luther and Calvin may have labeled the RCC as apostate – so what?” I’m not a follower of either of them, though I share belief in some of the things they taught that I see as Biblical.

Please understand that I use them simply as a couple of the more “famous” of the Reformers. The point I make is: The Protestant Reformation position is the RCC is not a Christian Church but is apostate. If you don’t agree, then you don’t.

But this statement is incorrect: “Disagreeing with Luther and Calvin (as demonstrated above) doesn’t negate the belief in a need for the Reformation.”

It’s not belief in “a need for”; to say the RCC is a Christian Church is to deny the heart of what the Reformation was about. Because the Reformers–not just Luther and Calvin–showed from the Bible that the RCC teaches the wrong view of the doctrine of justification, as well as the Gospel itself they labeled it as no longer Christian.

50   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
June 18th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Ken,

have you noticed that there has been a lack of appraising Apprising Ministries here? We are all tired of your hurtful tone, lack of compassion for anyone you disagree with, and overall bad attitude. I believe that you originally had good intentions when you started your ministry. But, it seems that somewhere along the line your heart began to bring forth more flesh than faith. You are like a bull in a china shop on the internet, and are blinded by your own out-of-control agenda. Like Rick said, if you can’t find one good thing about Rick Warren’s ministry, then your heart has obviously been hearted… and in your theological system, that would mean God has hardened it.

I respect men like Rick, that can have a decent human conversation about a man (Warren), that we have generally opposing views on. That is Christian charity.

And for the facts… again, I looked at Kjos’ hard facts and found her to be very deceitful in her use of sources (splitting quotes, putting words in Warren’s mouth, etc.). I am not too sure how much more there is to look at. I will not be critiquing your site, because I do not want to give Apprising any more internet traffic.

51   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

“I will not be critiquing your site, because I do not want to give Apprising any more internet traffic.”

Yeah, that’s why. ;-)

52   Paula    http://www.purposedrivel.com
June 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Look, I am fine if you have legitimate beef with Rick Warren’s programs. I am fine if you express realistic frustration over realistic issues with Purpose Driven. The problem is, half of the stuff on the internet from the ODMs is poorly supported, or over exaggerated.

This reminds me of how people classify “scientific” — e.g. only if it supports evolution. “legitimate” criticism of evolution — they say they’re all for that! After all the scientific community must have peer review!

… Except that any actual criticism of evolution is labeled illegitimate because it undermines evolution. Scientists are only well thought of if they do not question evolution, so if they bring up legitimate issues, they are immediately labeled ‘unscientific’ and as such are blown off and disregarded.

This same tactic is going on with regard to those who would defend Warren at all costs. If anyone has any actual doctrinal issues with Purpose Driven (yes, surprise, there is doctrinal content in PD!) they are immediately labeled ‘extreme’ and ‘exaggerations’ and discredit the author and the article.

Yes, Purpose Driven and Spirit led are mutually exclusive, as Warren has defined Purpose Driven, and so, you who disagree with the premise are immediately going to label Berit ‘unscientific’ and totally discredit her. That’s OK. She’s more worried about what the Lord thinks, I am sure.

53   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

But this statement is incorrect: “Disagreeing with Luther and Calvin (as demonstrated above) doesn’t negate the belief in a need for the Reformation.”

Sorry Ken, but your dog just don’t hunt…

Charges of apostasy didn’t come until later in the split, with Luther’s first attempts being around internal reform (primarily with plenary indulgences). Disagreeing with Luther/Calvin’s treatment of the Catholic church does not negate the belief in a need for the Reformation – there’s lots of historical and living proof of this Ken. I’m sorry the world doesn’t conform to your black and white “standards” when it is not necessarily so…

54   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Paula – I’m sorry you were hurt by a church that chose to use PD materials. Perhaps it’s time to move on past anger to acceptance of what happened in your own experience – blaming the local church rather than some ominous impersonal figure.

This reminds me of how people classify “scientific” — e.g. only if it supports evolution. “legitimate” criticism of evolution — they say they’re all for that! After all the scientific community must have peer review!

What an excellent example of ad homenim fallacy – bring in evolution as a completely irrelevant “trump card”.

[ I would also point out that science does not require support of evolution (though there is still a good deal of discrimination in this arena)- and, as a scientist, I can tell you that there a number of other scientists who see evidence (peer reviewed) that does not support atheistic evolution.]

This same tactic is going on with regard to those who would defend Warren at all costs. If anyone has any actual doctrinal issues with Purpose Driven (yes, surprise, there is doctrinal content in PD!) they are immediately labeled ‘extreme’ and ‘exaggerations’ and discredit the author and the article.

Sorry again, but I see nobody here “defending Warren at all costs” – we’re just asking for legitimate criticisms and a Christian treatment of the subject, rather than the lies, distortions, slander and utter lack of logic in a lion’s share of the rabid critic crowd… You know – that thing called objectivity.

Yes, Purpose Driven and Spirit led are mutually exclusive,

And so, with your insistence on a false dichotomy, you don’t need anyone here to discredit your arguments…

55   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
June 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

See more on SHAPE http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm

My gosh I never thought I’d do this, but here I go about to defend RW…

That ridiculous chart is nothing but strawman and logical fallacy.

a) Carl Yung researched the occult.
b) Carl Yung mentions personality types as part of his research.
c) People later create an MBTI test based off Yung’s work.
d) Because Yung studied the occult and talked about personalities, Jungs personality research is evil and so is the MBTI test.
e) Warren mentions Yung types in his book about understanding how you work to better evangelise and work,
f) therefore Warren agrees with Yung on the accult, and Warren supports and worships the Devil.

RW’s comments in the book using the Jung personality types has nothing to do with the state of a sinner, nor anything to do with salvation. As an INTJ I am thankful for the MBTI test to help me realise I’m not “wrong” as the majority of white western extroverted Christians would have me believe.

The charts connections are like saying a farmer is using the tools of the devil for buying and using a tractor a pagan man invented.

56   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Well it’s gotta be a false dichotomy Chris, because I’m Spirit led to be driven to God’s purposes for me in my life.

How’s them apples?

:-)

In other words…this thread is becoming tedious and indigestion inducing…lol…

57   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
June 19th, 2008 at 12:04 am

Purpose Driven and Spirit led are mutually exclusive, as Warren has defined Purpose Driven

Calvinism* and Spirit led are mutually exclusive, as Calvin has defined Calvinism*

*insert any Christian religious system here.

58   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
June 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am

My gosh I never thought I’d do this, but here I go about to defend RW…

Dave, there is a big difference between defending Rick Warren and simply recognizing bad logic. See, what you are doing is being honest in your assessment of the situation. So, your voice has just gained alot more credibility with me. You have the ability to put your own agenda aside to simple examine and defend truth.

59   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 6:38 am

There are many stories involving upheaval in churches because of the strongarm implimentation of the PDL model. But each case is different, and I myself was forced out of teaching a class of 100+ because I just could not understand why someone who had pastoral teaching credentials, and whose class loved the deeper teachings, would have to become just another cookie cutter.

Many times it is a matter of convenience and control. And the PDL is not so concerned with deepening people’s walk and Biblical knowledge, it is designed to grow churches numerically. So I get it.

However, to attack Rick Warren as some do reveals as much about themselves as it does about the things about Rick Warren they are addressing. And when the ODMs have a battle among themselves over why anyone would say anything nice about Warren it should be an object lesson to us all. Warren’s motives and heart have not only been questioned, they have been interpreted by those that actually seem to vehemently dislike him personally.

And here is more hypocrisy. When Mrs. Schlueter was extended an invitation to Saddleback she not only refused, but posted her letter of indignant refusal as some badge of discernment and Biblical stand. She eschewed any face to face talk because she had enough evidence, talking was useless. But when she had a problem with me and my criticism of her blog, she wanted to correspond by e-mail or phone.

That is a double standard which many times is the standard. There have been people who have made manipulative professions of faith, and that is a legitimate issue. However there have been many people saved through the PDL churches, people that none of us were reaching.

I will not and I cannot listen to anyone who does not discipline their verbiage to focus on issues without adding self serving and personal vitriol. I like Rick Warren from a distance, I think he and his wife do MAJOR good in Africa concerning AIDS and they do many other things. That does not excuse his pragmatism, or his associations, or his political activism, or even his view of how to transform a church into a PDL model.

But those issues I just mentioned do not give anyone the Biblical right to verbally eviscerate him without any regard to him being a brother in Christ. The truth warrior mentality has disregarded many other elements of Biblical truth, including humility, grace, forbearance, kindness, gentleness, and even love. Those are worth defending as well.

60   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
June 19th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Dave, there is a big difference between defending Rick Warren and simply recognizing bad logic.

It’s not just that, there are actually good things in PDL. There are some chapters I have no notes in about how evil it is!

61   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am

Thank you, Sir Henry, for your much needed words of wisdom.

62   Neil    
June 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am

This same tactic is going on with regard to those who would defend Warren at all costs. If anyone has any actual doctrinal issues with Purpose Driven (yes, surprise, there is doctrinal content in PD!) they are immediately labeled ‘extreme’ and ‘exaggerations’ and discredit the author and the article. – Paula

This is, of course, not true. Many of use have delineated what issues we have with Warren, Our defense of him has always been against dishonest manipulation of his words such as Nathan so aptly provided us with in the post.

63   Neil    
June 19th, 2008 at 8:08 am

Ken,

After reading your latest post regarding Warren I concur with you that you did not (at least from my reading of it) engage in the same kind of dishonest manipulation of his words that so many others have and which Nathan documented in this post.

However, I still find the nastiness unnecessary, nor am I convinced I agree with your premise – but that’s not the point.

Neil

64   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 8:10 am

I have a great example of defending someone at all costs versus not letting them be slandered. My mother-in-law copied my wife on one of those anti-Obama emails that was floating around a few months ago. My wife showed it to me. I took her to Snopes.com, and we discovered the truth about those emails. She emailed her mom correcting some of the lies.
The next time we got together, my mother-in-law assumed we were going to vote for Obama. I responded that we were not sure who we were voting for yet. This confused her. She commented that we sent her that email defending him; therefore we must be voting for him.
I said even if someone lied about my enemy, if I found out it was a lie, I would refute it.

65   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Rick.

“humility, grace, forbearance, kindness, gentleness, and even love. ”

You mean like the kind you show in bringing up Ingrid’s “faults” every chance you get?

Chris L.,

You’re very intellegent for sure, however Luther stood trial for heresy and was excommunicated (i.e. anathematized) so it’s kind of doubtful Rome considered him a Christian brother.

66   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 9:00 am

Luther stood trial for heresy and was excommunicated (i.e. anathematized) so it’s kind of doubtful Rome considered him a Christian brother.

I didn’t realize that my brother’s actions toward me required an equal and opposite reaction… That whole ‘do unto others…’ thing was optional…

Seriously, though, there was a whole lot of bad blood involved on both sides of the Reformation, and to say that it was all about X is kind of like saying that the U.S. Civil war was about X – it’s too complicated to be simplified to that degree… In fact, generations past the conflict, there’s still a great bit of disagreement over the U.S. Civil War’s root causes – thus, I’m not surprised by the diversity of views regarding the Reformation…

67   amy    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am

Perhaps it’s time to move on past anger to acceptance of what happened in your own experience – blaming the local church rather than some ominous impersonal figure.

Nowhere in Warren’s PDC book does he present a picture of a person who might have a legitimate concern and present it in a legitimate way. Don’t know Paula, haven’t read her site, but there are those who suffer because their pastor was taught by Warren in PDC to not listen to his critics. Perhaps he was one who began seeing critics as troublemakers, whether they actually were or not.

The book (PDC) still exists, and there are no doubt other books out there with the same philosophy of program before legitimate concerns, (perhaps presented as growth versus listening to grumpy traditionalists). Until the “local church” stops looking towards books and the media for ways to grow people have to deal with people/issues that are bigger than the local church.

68   Ingrid    http://www.crosstalkamerica.com
June 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am

Rick,
How did I come up in the comment section? I am apparently never far from your mind. I contacted you, Rick, to talk privately because it is a personal matter that you keep attacking me here at CRN.info. You are not a public figure and you haven’t sold millions of books, and the problem I have in what you write has to do with its personally insulting nature, not doctrinal teaching as a Christian leader. There’s a large difference. Further, I refused Rick Warren’s invitation not “indignantly” as you characterize it, but in honesty and clarity, knowing that these invitations would be public knowledge before long and I wanted no conjecture as to why I turned him down. I have nothing against Mr. Warren personally, and I am sure that he is a congenial and warm host. It is his public teaching that I take issue with and have always said that.

69   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am

Chris L: Paula – I’m sorry you were hurt by a church that chose to use PD materials.

Chris (again a great article by the way) but just an observation. Do you realize how many times that has been said on this site (including to me). It’s almost become a mantra. Doesn’t anyone see a trend here? If SO many churches are implementing PDL incorrectly doesn’t RW and the system itself bear some of the blame?

70   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Rick,

Also, thank you for your reasoned approach. It has certainly made me reaccess my approach on RW. He’s been demoted from The Anti-Christ to The False Prophet at least in my assessment :-)

71   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:45 am

I have a question:

Do the nay-sayers believe that there is “no such thing” as grumpy traditionalist that can choke a local church to death?

I’m not saying PD is the answer, but I am curious if holding the “traditional” line–even if it means your church is stagnating and turning into a self-righteous country club–is never wrong?

I ask because I’ve seen more churches struggle and stagnate because of hardliners that won’t face facts about “their church”.

Anyone?

72   nc    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am

Another thing,

is there really evidence beyond anecdotes that “so many churches” are implementing PD in a hurtful way?

73   Zan    
June 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am

Yes, John, they do. But at what point do we stop being victims, and choose to accept healing and welcome forgiveness into our hearts for the CHURCH (local body) that actually perpetrated the wrong? At what point do we no longer allow others’ mistakes and bad choices to influence how we think and feel? At what point do we stop allowing their hurtful actions, etc, to rule our lives? By refusing to let it go and die, we continue to give the wrongdoers power over us and our lives and emotions. The wrong was performed by the people who often, not always, blindly followed man’s words (RW) instead of looking at the Bible and determining either
1. how to apply PD in the way Christ would want, or 2. choose a different route.

74   Nathan    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am

A good point NC. Often times people who have had common bad experiences will gather together (like on a blog) and commiserate with one another’s pain. In their minds then, the majority of people in the world have had the same experience…. hence the “so many churches” is what they focus on.

I know hundreds of churches who went through 40 DOP and had great experiences. I have personal friends who came to christ during and because of a PD church (and are still saved!). I know dying churches that turned around and grew because they focused more on worship, evangelism, ministry, fellowship and discipleship. I know a few people who had bad experiences as well. Does that mean that the program is bad because a few had a bad experience? No.

People being hurt by churches did not start with PD. Let’s face it. Christians are some of the most prideful, arrogant, self-seeking, angry and disgruntled people I know. We would eat each other alive with or without PD.

75   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am

If SO many churches are implementing PDL incorrectly doesn’t RW and the system itself bear some of the blame?

John,

Here’s the rub – RW was basically in the right place at the right time. He was being asked by a whole lot of people how his church had grown so fast without a health & wealth message, why it didn’t seem to be plagued with the problems many churches face when transitioning from small to medium to large, and why it was able to have such an impact on the community around it. All of this was happening during the start-up of the internet and the publishing boom of the late-80’s/early-90’s.

He made it pretty clear in the PDC – “this is what worked for me, but it might not work for you because every community is different.”

Switching tracks a moment – GE went through the same thing in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Jack Welsh said “this is what worked for us, but it might not work for you”. A bunch of businesses emulated GE. The ones who were intelligent and introspective (or just plain lucky) were quite successful. The ones who tried it as a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach, or who didn’t make the structural changes – if they could even be made – failed, sometimes miserably.

Switching back to PDC – A lot of churches (including my own, years before I moved there) were able to integrate a number of Warren’s ideas successfully to the glory of God for their local churches. A number, though, tried it as a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach and/or didn’t make the structural changes – if they could even be made – for it to work.

To be a bit more blunt: if a church was already suffering from some sort of dysfunction – spiritual or social or both – PD wasn’t going magically fix it, even if it temporarily increased the number of people attending. Many churches in the 125-400 member range have leadership which is completely ill-equipped to lead a larger church, and to have fast growth without the shepherding capability and organizational capability to support it is a recipe for disaster.

In my experience with people who’ve had bad experiences with PD, there have been four primary camps:

1) Those upset by a change in musical style (by far the biggest group). This, in and of itself, is demonstrable of an immature body of believers, if musical preference is the source of strife.

2) Those upset by the insistence of all small-groups & Sunday School classes to follow a specific set of lessons (which are geared toward a new believer, and quite inane/boring to mature believers). How the church handles this is often a test of whether they should have used PD in the first place. As in Rick’s case, I’ve seen this one handled quite ham-handedly.

3) Those who went to their pastor/elders/leadership board and, in effect, said ‘PD is unbiblical, and I’m going to be a pain in your rear if you don’t agree with me and change as I see fit’.

4) Those who went through the 40-day program, grew in numbers for awhile, and then went back to the status quo, because it was just a 40-day program without any thought to long-term leadership and change.

Certainly, I think some blame has to be shared with the marketing of PD to churches. At the same time, I think that when you’ve communicated “here’s what worked for me, but it may not work for you…” and someone else ignores the “but” and the fundamental changes required in organizational structure, the primary fault lies with that person…

76   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am

Chris L. Good points and well thought out. I see PDL, (RW’s protestations aside) as the epitome of the church growth movement of which I am at great philosphical odds with, Hybels / Warren et al. It all comes down to ones concept of who a worship service is designed for? I think the answer should be self apparent, but many obviously disagree.

77   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am

Now Ken, don’t be the Richard Abanes for Mrs. Schlueter. :)

As usual, Mrs. Schlueter, you’ve missed the entire corrective point.

THE ODM DICTIONARY

Correction – anything I say against Rick Warren, his teachings, his hospitality, his humanitarian efforts.

Attacks – anything said about my correction of Rick Warren

“I contacted you, Rick, to talk privately because it is a personal matter that you keep attacking me here at CRN.info.”

A personal matter? I know nothing of your personal matters nor do I wish to. I promised no humor and I attempt to keep that promise.

78   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am

Zan, in my TWO cases, no one on either “side” was hateful or spiteful and we left in peace and in good standing (relatively speaking) with both bodies and maintain many friendships from both. I find it equally frustrating to be labeled bitter and vengful when I am neither. On the other hand it is tough to let something go when it follows you around like a bad penney! :-) PDL is a part (albeit a large part) of an overriding world view of which I, and many like me, are at odds. If it isn’t PDL or Willow Creek it would be something else and I will continue to speak out against this world view because I think it is unbiblical and mancentered. But to be passionate and persistant is not the same as being bitter. That is just an excuse to write someone off someone you disagree with. (Not that you are necessarily doing that).

79   Nathan    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am

I think the answer should be self apparent, but many obviously disagree.

The problem is that it isn’t clear in the scriptures, and we have made it so black and white. Are we mindful of the outsider, and create a place where people can come experience God for the first time? Or is it a time exclusively for the family of God to worship the Lord? It’s not so cut and dry.

But let’s not get off on a tangent here.

GREAT post Chris.

80   Nathan    
June 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am

I think it is unbiblical and mancenter

ed

how is being driven by evangelism, worship, discipleship, ministry and fellowship man driven and unbiblical? That is the at the core of the ministry philosophy.

81   John Hughes    
June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am

Nathan,

I’m talking specifically about the Worship Service, not the overall church program.

82   Neil    
June 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I wonder how many churches suffered through a PD incident, not so much because there was something wrong with how it was implemented, but because some in the church decided to believe the dishonest rhetoric they read on-line and created a problem themselves?

83   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I wonder how many churches suffered through a PD incident, because there is something wrong with how it is implemented, as well as its pragmatic instant church message.

But the Lord be praised that some in the church were comforted by the honest Biblical critiques of men like Bob DeWaay and Dr. Gary Gilley which they read on-line and it helped heal their wounded spirits.

84   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

But the Lord be praised that some in the church were comforted by the honest Biblical critiques of men like Bob DeWaay and Dr. Gary Gilley which they read on-line and it helped heal their wounded spirits.

More like “stir up additional strife…”

85   John Hughes    
June 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am

Chris L,

One man’s “strife” is the other’s “earnestly contending for the faith”. It often just depends which side of the issue you are on. Anytime you defend or challenge a position you are potentially causing strife.

86   Neil    
June 20th, 2008 at 7:53 am

Chris L,

One man’s “strife” is the other’s “earnestly contending for the faith”. It often just depends which side of the issue you are on. Anytime you defend or challenge a position you are potentially causing strife. – John

This is true, of course… and this site is an example of that. The problem more often lies with the attitudes and methodology… which is the point of the original post. Too often dishonest means are employed, as Nathan pointed out… other times, as Ken has illustrated, the content “may” be accurate but the attitude so vitriolic it’s self defeating.

For example, just think of the good ‘ol honest debate we could have if Ken refrained from name calling and his standard snarkiness.

Although I will say, in several comments recently he has contributed to the discussion as opposed to just being snarky.

Neil

87   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 7:55 am

But the Lord be praised that some in the church were comforted by the honest Biblical critiques of men like Bob DeWaay and Dr. Gary Gilley which they read on-line and it helped heal their wounded spirits.

I just love how you attach the adjectives “honest” and “Biblical” in front of the word critique, as if that somehow makes it unassailable. Just because you call something “Biblical” doesn’t mean it’s still anything else than these dudes’ opinions.

I don’t doubt that people have been hurt on all sides, but hiding behind the facade that our position is the Biblical one just means that no resolution will ever come to an issue.

88   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am

Phil,

Here’s your problem in a nutshell: “hiding behind the facade that our position is the Biblical one just means that no resolution will ever come to an issue.”

Just exactly what do you think you do yourself. Face it is all I ask. You think your position best represent what the Bible teaches as I do my position.

In that respect an ADM is like the ODM and the quicker you admit that to yourselves the better. That’s why I often reverse the argument as I did above.

My point is precisely what you state above: “Just because you call something ‘Biblical’ doesn’t mean it’s still anything else than these dudes’ opinions.” We each just listen to other “dudes,” don’t we.

*whispering* Don’t tell anyone ‘cuz it’ll ruin my reputation as the guy ADMs hate to love but I am only trying to get you to realize that in this respect you ADMs do the very same thing as ODMs.

You think your view, with your dudes is right, where I think my view, with my dudes is right. But let’s at least be men and admit it and live with it.

89   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am

Ken,
Well, of course I think my view is right, but I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me is absolutely wrong. I don’t think I’m right about everything. My experience and perspective influences the way I see things. I try to plant my perspective within the Biblical narrative, but I don’t try to use the Bible as weapon or shield of my positions.

I don’t think the purpose of Scripture is to prove us correct, or to be our equivalent of some sort of legal handbook. The purpose of Scripture is to reveal Christ to us. We, in turn, must live this out everyday. Using Scripture to bolster our positions is actually lessening it’s power in our lives.

90   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am

I admit it.

However where I disagree with many “ODMs” is how they approach those who have different opinions. And when some refused on CRs blog to even acknowledge Warren may have a hospitible bone in his body and that every good thing he does he does with a conscious motive to manipulate others to his point of view, well, that is an open judge of his heart.

And some on this blog return evil for evil sometimes, but they rushed to commend Mrs. Schlueter on her comments and a post that seemed much more conciliatory. To his credit, Chris Rosebrough was honest and complimented Warren but others refused.

That is just one small difference and I am by no means blind to the hypocrisy of all of us sometimes. We should be able to converse with strong, Biblical, and even aggressive perspectives without desiring to “win” at the expense of civility.

I will say this to you, Ken, openly on this blog. Regardless of anything else, you do have a spirit of forgiveness in the blogasphere. I have written some things to you that would have caused others to become bitter against me, but you have not. You have written things to me as well, and yet we e-mail from time to time as brothers in Christ.

In my view as a believer that is important. I hope I didn’t get you kicked out of the club! :)

PS – You also somehow allow God’s grace to control you because you read the things I say about Calvinism. Do not think I don’t see that in you, I do. You are in huge trouble now.

91   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 10:05 am

“Using Scripture to bolster our positions is actually lessening it’s power in our lives.”

Well, in my view it appears the NT writers and the Apostolic Fathers had a different opinion.

92   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Rick,

I am not speaking for her, however if you’d take Ingrid up on her offer to speak with you privately I think you’d see she’s actually nicer than me.

And thanks for blowing my cover as an unfeeling self-righteous machine!