Mr. Silva recently published a link on CRN to this article. Now, there are those who have legitimate beef with the purpose-driven movement. These arguments usually talk about a lack of strong doctrine, a focus on methods over theology and pastors that have gone off the edge with the PDL campaign. These people would usually not call Rick Warren or his program apostate, semi-pelagian or man centered, but they would pass on the PDL for legit reasons for their church community.

Then there are those who have jumped on the anti-Purpose Driven band wagon and have abandoned logic in their arguments. Sandy Simpson has created a chart to help people figure out if their church is Warren Driven or Bible Driven. She automatically shows her bias with the title, as if they were in contrast.

I really don’t have much to say about the article. Here are some quotes — you decide for yourself.

Warren Driven
Is your church participating in Rick Warren’s “P.E.A.C.E. Plan” to “solve” the world problems of “Spiritual Lostness, Lack of Godly Leaders, Poverty, Disease, and Lack of
Education.”

Bible Driven
Does your church recognize that “The poor you will always have with you” (Matt. 6:11) and that making boasts (James 3:5) like Warren makes proves that he does not understand what the Bible teaches on these things?

Hmmm… does Ms. Simpson truly believe that the scriptures say we should not care for the poor, or share about what God is doing around the world with believers caring for the orphans and widows based off of these two verses? She doesn’t sound too bible-driven to me.

Warren Driven
Does your church believe, with Warren, that “Today, most local churches are sidelined and uninvolved when it comes to missions. The message from most mission and parachurch organizations to the local church is essentially “Pray, pay, and get out of the way.”

Bible Driven
Has your church continued to do its own mission work in its local area and support mission groups and efforts in other areas of the world? Does your church believe that most bible-believeing Christ-centered churches are NOT “sidelined” and “uninvolved” in mission work?

Um, are they not saying the same thing? Rick Warren is frustraited with churches have passed off their responsibility to do mission work in its local area and have an active part in global evangelism? Also, Warren did not say that Bible-believing, Christ-centered churches are bing sidelined. He said most church are. Oops, looks like Ms. Simpson may be more Purpose Driven than she thinks.

Warren Driven
Does your church “Statement of Faith”, like that of Saddleback, simply state regarding the Trinity that “God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine”? (Note: Saddleback has since added another doctrinal statement to their site stating an orthodox view of the Trinity. This does not negate the fact that the above “dumb-downed” statement about God is basically useless, and in fact could be very misleading to people who already have a false concept of God.)

Bible Driven
Does your church doctrinal statement contain the concept that God is One God eternally existing in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

for the record, the complete “dumbed-down statement” from Saddleback’s section called Bible Q&A is as follows

The Bible teaches very clearly that there is one God not two or three or seven. It also teaches clearly that the Father is God and that Jesus is God and also that the Holy Spirit is God. The fact that there is only one God and yet three separate persons are called God leads us to the truth of the “Trinity” of God. This means that God is one in being, and he exists in three persons. That’s why Jesus can talk to the Father and be sent by the Father and yet they are still one. This is a difficult truth to grasp. I tell people that it’s one of the truths about God that reminds us that he is bigger than we are.

I’ll let you decide on the agenda here. It’s unfortunate that some have to go to this level to prove a point.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2008 at 10:56 pm and is filed under Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

93 Comments(+Add)

1   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 12:26 am

I can almost guarantee that Ms. Simpson listens to Rush Limbaugh… as it seems that this is the Limbaugh purpose she is mouthing.

The poor are poor because they are lazy.

The hungry need to work so they can eat.

You need to go out and get a job if you want education and work through it.

and on and on… forgetting we are in America… and many are not able to have even the slightest privilege we have here.

Also, her view is so out of balance that it is blasphemous. It cut against every prophets teaching in the OT… and much if not most of Jesus’ teachings even twisting it to fit her own man-made agenda and doctrine so that she can attack RW….

I really wonder sometimes… I really do if these people even own a bible other than to abuse others with it.

iggy

2   Sandman    
August 11th, 2008 at 12:51 am

Iggy, how often do you listen to Rush? Just wondering.

I raised a bit of a stink over the whole PDL/40 days thing for the more legit reasons.

This whole thing reminds me of Gail Riplinger and her ridiculous “New Age Bible Versions”. Or a manufactured revival, or whatever the fashion of the day is. It either tickles the ears or caters to existing biases or paranoia about the latest conspiracy theories.

People who don’t know any better will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 1:23 am

Rush Limbaugh is a murmuring and complaining talk show host who demeans and attacks everyone who disagrees with him. To get 400 million dollars to talk just illustrates how low the culture has gone. And many Christians swear by him despite his irreligious lifestyle and personal problems.

That is what happens when you mix “conservative” politics and faith in Jesus Christ. Between him and Ann Coulter I don’t know who is worse. Self righteousness on a repulsive scale and consumed by believers. Wow.

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 1:31 am

My disagreement with the PDL has to do with the overpragmatic approach and the equation like strategy for both evangelism and discipleship. I do not question Rick Warren’s salvation or motives, just his business startegy approach.

We must avoid removing the ministry of the Spirit by manipulating sinners by asking questions structured to get a positive response. I find Riack’s suggestion that if he could get each sinner alone for a time he could lead them to Christ, and he similarly made a suggestion that if you brought an unsaved person to the Easter service they would surely get saved. That suggest a stuctured assembly line type evangelism.

5   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 2:02 am

Sandman,

I was a huge fan for a while, then one day he stated, “if a person resorts to name calling they no longer have any substitive arguments. Now, here is a Femi-nazi update.”

I realized then he had no more substitive arguements and stopped listening.

iggy

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 2:06 am

I also have issues with PDL, but really did not find any of the so-called issues most ODM’s seem to bring up… in fact most of their issues seem fabricated…

I found that in many cases it was “program driven” and in that lost its personal touch in ministry.

Yet, if one understands the foundation of PDL, it is that we are made to bring glory to God and worship Him… that is our purpose… or at least what I got out of PDL… and my wife got out of it… and the people I was with as we went through it thought…

It seems that is the central purpose one has as a Christian, so the main teaching… (even with out of context bible verses at times) is still sound.

iggy

7   ncgal55    
August 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am

I believe Ms. Simpson is a Mr. and a missionary on the Island of Oahu. Somehow I don’t think he is listening to Rush Limbaugh. The facts about who Mr. Simpson is are stated on the web site.

8   Sandman    
August 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am

I surveyed some people who were big into PDL. They never finished reading the book.

A number of people never opened their Bible to confirm what he was saying, or stopped reading their Bible altogether while doing 40 days. Too busy doing one to do the other.

Some of the problems I had:

Using so many bible translations with a paraphrase (The Message) as his primary reference.

Proof-texting, particularly applying things originally intended for believers as general promises to anyone reading the book.

9   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Does your church recognize that “The poor you will always have with you” (Matt. 6:11) and that making boasts (James 3:5) like Warren makes proves that he does not understand what the Bible teaches on these things?

This is one of the most unintentionally ironic statements I have ever read. So how does Ms. Simpson reconcile her belief that somehow poor people are just supposed to be there with this statement from Deuteronomy 15:3-5.

You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.

If anything when Jesus says, “the poor you always have with you”, it’s an indictment of the Jewish religious leaders’ failure to see the actual heart of the law.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am

ncgal55,

Really the gender is irrelevant… Do you agree with the now adrongenous Simpson?
To me being a missionary and having this as one’s biblical understanding is worse!

Also, Limbaugh is broadcast in many places… often the military will broadcast him… even to that remote area of Oahu which is still part of Hawaii which if I recall is part of the USA.
iggy

11   Neil    
August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am

A number of people never opened their Bible to confirm what he was saying, or stopped reading their Bible altogether while doing 40 days. Too busy doing one to do the other. – Sandman

This is, of course, not the fault of the book nor the author… I bet we could find as many people who are too busy blogging to read their Bibles.

Neil

12   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am

You know, if I had the time I would write up my own little ” ________ vs the Bible”. Except my lines would look something like this:

Calvin-Driven or Bible-Obedient?

You get the point, right?

Spurgeon-Driven or Spirit-Driven?

It’s entirely too easy to force such dichotomies upon the church and claim one is bad and the other not.

Pope-Driven or Not-Pope-Driven?

Thankfully, what I learned this morning is that not one single one of us will be saved because we have or have not a particular theological system we subscribe to. The New Testament makes it clear that the only thing that saves us is faith in Jesus Christ. I have yet to hear Rick Warren (or Rick Frueh) deny this. (And, to be sure, I am one of those highly critical of the PDL stuff.)

jerry

13   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
August 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am

Didn’t find mention of Sandy being a man anywhere. Sorry.

14   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am

iggy,

whatever else we may say about Limbaugh, he is right about at least one thing: it is not the responsibility of the government to be the saviors of people and to do so by sticking their noses into our pocket-books and wallets. it is the responsibility of the church to care for the downtrodden, the poor, the afflicted. my guess is that if the government would lower my taxes and give me more of my own money then I would have more means to take care of the poor and afflicted and downtrodden. Limbaugh is not against the poor, he is against the government acting as if THEY are the solution to the problems the poor face. I agree with him that they are not. That help must come from the private sector–primarily the church. That’s all I will say here on this subject so as not to derail the thread. I’ll gladly discuss this with anyone via email. (PS-this is nto a carte-blanche defense of Limbaugh. I disagree with him at many points, but i whole-heartedly agree with his take on the intrusion of government into every available nook of our lives. A good example of this is so-called ‘faith based initiatives’ which is one of the worst ideas ever conceived of and given birth to on the planet.)

y/f
jerry

15   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
August 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am

I have been looking over his/her site. I have found some pretty interesting stuff. I just took a survey on their website about the church. This was one of the boxes you could either leave checked or unchecked

What are you motivated by? Is it genuine love for God and the group etc. or is it fear of not meeting the desired standards?

how do you answer yes or no to that?

16   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
August 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Brother Sandy is a friend of mine.

17   troy    http://www.sheepandgoats.blogspot.com
August 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

To jump onto the Limbaugh side-thread…
Not that I agreed with the book in entirety, but it’s definitely something I took away from “Jesus for President” by Shane Claiborne. Growing up in the mid-west, all Christians are supposed to be Republicans. Shane laid it out like I’d never seen it before.

18   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Troy,

I get that point too and it has really been in the last year or so that I have made the swing from republican to independent (although I am currently registered as a democrat).

My problem is not necessarily with reps or dems as much as it is with libs and cons (no pun please). if there is such a thing as a conservative democrat, I’m on their side. As it is, most moral issues fall into the conservative rep camp; whether by default or not I don’t know.

i cannot support a candidate, under any circumstances, who supports abortion, for example; but, i can support a candidate who does not (support abortion) even if that candidate happens to favor, say, drilling for oil in Alaska. It is, so to speak, the lesser of two evils.

jerry

PS-isn’t Claiborne that guy with the weird hair?

19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Ken,

Brother Sandy is a friend of mine.

So? Gender does not take away that the article is poorly written at best and unbiblical at worst.

And you seemed to affirm it… so again… so? You support unbiblilcal articles? You post poorly written posts? But then what else is new?

iggy

Seeking shelter from Jesus in the ODM hate-filled landfield.

20   troy    http://www.sheepandgoats.blogspot.com
August 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Yeah, his hair seems a bit unkempt (I believe they’re actually dreads). My biggest complaint with either side is the desire to get more (taxes), spend more and get bigger. I can’t say I favor either party anymore. I can’t entirely agree with Shane’s views on things (eg. protesting, activism…etc.). And I haven’t completely baught into the whole non-violent point of view. I haven’t really taken the time to think it through, though.
troy

21   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Jerry,

RE: the church helping the downtrodden

nice in theory, but stats showed that just a couple years ago that churches in America generated 150 Billion (with a b) USD and had another 70 million in new construction projects–i.e. new church buildings.

For all the apologists that say “the Church” should do this and that and point to stats that “prove” our generosity, the reality is that overwhelmingly we spend most of our money on ourselves, to wash ourselves and entertain ourselves and to benefit ourselves.

With respect to politics…the democrats took control of the house and senate partly due to the fact that a lot of “pro-life” democrats ran.

I’m pro-life, but I also know that there’s more to a country and being a wise legislator than that issue.

Do we need to stop the holocaust of the unborn? Yes.
But just because “Jesus is your hero”, you’re pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and read Oswald Chambers every morning doesn’t make you qualified to be a leader in this country. We have an outgoing president to prove it.

22   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

one last thing:

This whole “the government gets into our pockets” thing…

remember…the government is “us”?
We sent those people there to do the job of governing us and preserving the social contract.

That “government” is out to get us thing is unproductive and a script that I just don’t buy anymore.

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

“overwhelmingly we spend most of our money on ourselves, to wash ourselves and entertain ourselves and to benefit ourselves.”

Exactly!

“We sent those people there to do the job of governing us and preserving the social contract.”

Not me.

24   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

That’s cuz you don’t vote, bro…

;)

That means you don’t get to complain then….

;) ;)

25   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I don’t complain. :cool:

I pray :cool:

26   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

nc,

I’m going to argue with you, but your post demonstrates exactly why there is a political divide. I disagree entirely with your take. I also disagree further with your take on the ‘outgoing president’. The democrats took control and yet, despite 8 years of clinton and a majority in the house and senate during his and Bush’s presidency, we have nothing to show: no improvement, no relief for the poor, no nothing.

I’m not going to say another word on the issue of politics because it is exactly my point of view and your point of view that causes such divides. I respect your point of view, but I disagree with it profoundly. And I don’t listen to Limbaugh. (2 times in the last year.)

jerry

27   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

ps–you wrote: ‘But just because “Jesus is your hero”, you’re pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and read Oswald Chambers every morning doesn’t make you qualified to be a leader in this country. We have an outgoing president to prove it.’

Neither does the opposite of those things. then again, no one ever said they did.

now i’m done.

jerry

28   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

I’m not saying the government is the answer…I’m just saying that it’s an easy target that doesn’t really take into account the principles of american political structure.

Nobody claimed the opposite was beneficial either, but you have to admit that alot of you evangelicals got on the Bush train because of those very issues.

The “godly” republicans havent’ accomplished a thing with respect to the life issue and if you don’t see their constant use of it, AND the gay issue for the cynical political maneuvering that it is then I can’t really argue with you.

Also, I don’t know which America had the dem’s in control for Clinton AND bush…

remember they lost the congress in the midterm of Clinton’s FIRST term?

I ‘m not saying their the answer, but the instant move by evangelicals to assert that the implicit claims of deserved critiques is a pro-dem outlook only serves to prove the point:

Evangelicals are in bed with a political party and it is sin.

29   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

some other things so you can understand where I’m coming from…

a political divide isn’t a bad thing. That’s part of the power hungry false narrative of the so called “right” and “left”.

I don’t buy the narrative of “conservative vs. liberal”.
Life and reality is more complex than that.

Evangelicals have been deeply unreflective about the unforeseen implications of the way they get involved in politics. And they deserve a harsh rebuke for it. It has obscured the gospel.

I can be committed to the pro-life position and still rightly critique the damaging effects of single-issue voters–even when I agree with them in principle.

Single-issue voters are the ultimate pawns of both corrupt power bases called the Republicans and Democrats.

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

“Evangelicals are in bed with a political party and it is sin.”

better:

“Christians are in bed with politics and it is a sin”

Fixed. The government is God’s business.

31   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Rick,
They didn’t get the name, “Evangelical Right” for nothing.

32   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

nc,

Allow me to further my point by agreeing with you. You wrote: “Evangelicals are in bed with a political party and it is sin.” I agree with you 100%.

However, and I think you might agree here, the solution is not, then, to jump in bed with the (any!) other political party. The Scripture is rather clear that politicians, governments, those in authority on earth are NOT the solution to anything that has overcome us. All authority has been given to Jesus on heaven and earth. This means we follow Jesus.

Sadly, we live in a culture where we are almost forced to vote because if we do not we are castigated as worthless rubes.

Look at Isaiah 1. Notice that Isaiah begins his book with a preface: What he said was said over the course of the reign of four different kings. Then notice the decrepit state of Judah during that time (2-23). Isaiah’s point is that those kings could not, would not, and did not do anything to make matters better. In fact, later he says they were corrupt leaders full of greed and injustice. The solution was to come from God Himself, and did in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Perhaps this is the gist of Claiborne’s book Jesus for President (although I haven’t read it so I can’t say for certain.) But Jesus should at least be the president of the church. If he was, methinks the church would be done a little differently and we wouldn’t have to have conversations about which party or person is running the country: It wouldn’t matter.

jerry

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Wow, Jerry. You need to write the preface to my book!

34   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Jerry,
Help me understand something.

Why should we care about this:

Sadly, we live in a culture where we are almost forced to vote because if we do not we are castigated as worthless rubes.

If we are believing and living this:

All authority has been given to Jesus on heaven and earth. This means we follow Jesus.

Thanks,
Chad

35   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

So I am a worthlees rube, Jerry? Thanks a lot! :)

36   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Rick,

You might be surprised at the things I think about all day long. I’d be honored to write the preface for anyone’s book. I’m hoping the Pastor Silva will soon be inviting me to write the forward to his new book: How Me and Jerry Became Fast Friends Despite Not Seeing Quite Eye to Eye on Anything. (Then again, maybe I shouldn’t be making jokes today. Hmmmm….)

jerry

37   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Chad,

That is exactly my point isn’t it? I just took the ironic way of getting it across.

jerry

PS–or I just forgot. :)

38   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

You know there’s something wrong with the OP. Rick Warren doesn’t claim that the church ought to be ‘Warren Driven’ but that it should be ‘Purpose Driven.’ That’s not what Nathan said, but Pastor Sandy did.

Serious question: Do you think people hate Rick Warren because he is successful? I mean, is it really theological or is it jealousy?

jerry

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Here are some book titles I am working on:

Voting – The Mark of the Beast.

I Want to Show Grace, But I Love Law so Much!

I Have Arrived!

What I’ve Learned from Ozzy Osbourne.

40   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Have you ever listened to Ozzy’s lyrics? You might be surprised what you could learn.

41   nc    
August 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Ozzy?!?!?

Jerry!

I’m, I, I, I, I’m…

just…

speechless…

I mean, I just can’t imagine what the Reformers, much less the Apostles, much less Jesus would think…

Such apostasy in the circus church.

42   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Serious question: Do you think people hate Rick Warren because he is successful? I mean, is it really theological or is it jealousy?

My money is on jealousy. But if not that, I think pastor’s or church pew sitters feel somewhat intimidated by someone who actually puts their money where their mouth is and puts hair on their faith. I mean, if we all had a purpose on this earth that was more concerned about the other than myself, how would I fit my judging into my day?

43   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

It is not jealosy, Chad. It is about sincere differences that sometimes are communicated with hyperbolic rhetoric.

Rick Warren is a sincere believer who has a heart for people but uses business strategies to evangelize people and disciple them. To me it is over pragmatic and sometimes shallow.

He also joins with some he should not which gives the wrong impression.

44   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

It is not jealosy, Chad. It is about sincere differences that sometimes are communicated with hyperbolic rhetoric.

Maybe not jealousy but a sever suspicion of success. And frankly, I am not all that convinced they are sincere differences. There might be a few who fall in that camp but my take is that most people are just following their respective bandwagons. It is not a sincere difference when you resort to making up things about your “enemy” to mock (i.e. a Word-Picture or Heavenly Rewards Calculator and the like).
I can understand someone disagreeing with me because I am not a Calvinist, for instance, but at least disagree with me for the right reasons. Not because you think I am trying to save myself or that I can even make the first move towards God without grace.

peace.

45   Sandman    
August 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

This is, of course, not the fault of the book nor the author… I bet we could find as many people who are too busy blogging to read their Bibles.

Neil

I don’t blame RW for that; I’m just talking about what went on in my sphere, and it wasn’t a universal occurrence. It’s just interesting to note what people I know have been willing to let capture their focus.

46   Rezlimey    
August 12th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Single-issue voters are the ultimate pawns of both corrupt power bases called the Republicans and Democrats.

Well, you could take a look at Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party as candidate for POTUS as a refreshing alternative between the two.

As it is, I like to think of McCain French Fries and Abomi-/Obama-Nation.

47   EnnisP    http://taitoday.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 5:25 am

iggy said,

many (outside America) are not able to have even the slightest privilege we have here.

Well said, in many cases there are no jobs. Christians should be trying to recitify that?

Rick said,

Rush Limbaugh is a murmuring and complaining talk show host who demeans and attacks everyone who disagrees with him.

Correct. Rush is about as apprising with politics as others are with theology. I would rather have Bill Clinon in the White House than Rush behind a microphone. Bill costs less, he is just as entertaining, he actually did some good things for people who really needed it and morally he was at least on a par with Limbaugh (maybe even higher – who knows).

Sandman said,

I surveyed some people who were big into PDL. They never finished reading the book.

That is a reflection on America not RW.

Ken Silva said,

Brother Sandy is a friend of mine.

That explains a lot.

Hi Ken. Hope you are well. Nice to connect again.

Rick said,

I don’t complain. I pray.

If you are ever hungry, let Rick know, and he will pray for you. (smiley face here)

nc said,

a political divide isn’t a bad thing. That’s part of the power hungry false narrative of the so called “right” and “left”.

I don’t buy the narrative of “conservative vs. liberal”.
Life and reality is more complex than that.

That is spot on. Not even Rick F could say it that well.

As for Rick Warren, I must commend Nathan for allowing him to speak for himself.

“Purpose Driven” is a good book (I’ve read it more than once) and the program is designed well for those it was intended for, lost people.

It wouldn’t be suitable for seminary students but it wasn’t written for them and it wasn’t designed to stand alone. Effective use of the program requires facilitation by a well informed leader who can work well with curious unbelievers.

The fact that Rick didn’t give every possible angle to every possible answer for every possible question shows wisdon on his part and was a compliment to any person who leads a group. Maybe he believed that facilitators could fill in the gaps where necessary. Even if the facilitator is “out to lunch,” going through the process would definitely stimulate thought. What’s wrong with that.

I appreciate the fact that someone, in this case RW, has taken the time to develop a program to share the simple truths about Jesus with people who otherwise would never know. And I am grateful he was willing to make it available to others at hardly any pricde at all.

BTW, one of the reasons some churches have attempted to use the material and failed or worse, became embroiled in conflict, was their strangeness to evangelism. Evangelism and discipleship can be very messy and inconvenient. The status quo is always disturbed by full on evangelism. It requires a conditioning that you don’t readily find in modern (American) churches.

That’s all I have to say about that…for now.

48   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 7:56 am

““Purpose Driven” is a good book (I’ve read it more than once) and the program is designed well for those it was intended for, lost people.”

I agree, however so many if not most churches use it to increase their attendance with numbers of people who have made even the most distracted and shallow profession of faith. And in a startling revelation, many of the church members latch onto the book and program as if it a deep discipleship program.

The mega church in America is so leveraged in debt that they must control with uniformity and non-negotiable programs. To allow several levels of spirituality is to let the horse out of the barn and be vulnerable to problems. And sometimes the implimentation of the PDL is heavy handed and with little or no concern with any resistance, and in fact, resistance is sometimes met with a welcome mat to the back door.

Even Rick Warren has given some encouragement for churches to dispel resisters. There are some good things about the book however it has been used as the end and not the means.

49   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 13th, 2008 at 8:41 am

I actually do listen to Rush occasionally just for the entertainment value. I do think he is pretty funny, even though I find myself agreeing with him less and less. I guess I enjoy the fact that he’s not afraid to take on sacred cows. It’s kind of the same reason I enjoy the humor in the magazine, The Wittenburg Door.

Overall, I’m pretty disillusioned with whole political process (not that I was ever “illusioned”, really). I guess the thing is that both parties want big government, and I just don’t think government is the solution to most of life’s problems.

50   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 8:44 am

Phil – the first semblence of democracy was an act of rebellion when the people voted for a king like the heathen. God gave them Saul. The church today has been deceived into particpating in a continuing mirror of Israel’s rebellion.

51   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am

I agree, however so many if not most churches use it to increase their attendance with numbers of people who have made even the most distracted and shallow profession of faith.

Same goes for programs like VBS or anything else. Rick, I am sure you would agree that this is not RW’s fault nor the book.

peace,
Chad

EnnisP – good post.

52   EnnisP    http://taitoday.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I agree, however so many if not most churches use it to increase their attendance with numbers of people who have made even the most distracted and shallow profession of faith.

That is an accurate observation but the truth is, even Jesus had a lot of chaff in the crowds that followed Him. We don’t codemn Him for that.

In fact, I think we are supposed to emulate Him. If we did our churches might be more mega-like and less…you know what I mean.

Come to think of it, Jesus might be accused of mega-itus if He were here today. He did feed five thousand men plus women and children in one sitting and there are many other occasions when the crowds were huge.

BTW, Jesus only discipled 12 individuals personally while He ministered to thousands of shallow unsaved people. Do the numbers on the feeding event. That’s one disciple for every 415 adult male curious unbelievers. That’s what I call surrounded.

We do just the opposite. We have a house full of flag waving, Bible toting, abortion button wearing, gay bashing “credible” disciples who manage to scare the bahoogy out of any unsuspecting curious unbeliever who gets within ear shot.

How in the world did Jesus manage to disciple a hand full of men when He was surrounded by so many superficial sinners? Well, He didn’t use the popular methods taught in many Bible Colleges of the recent past.

Love to all

53   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Come to think of it, Jesus might be accused of mega-itus if He were here today. He did feed five thousand men plus women and children in one sitting and there are many other occasions when the crowds were huge.

These are great points, Ennis.

This has been said in numerous places and in numerous ways but when someone begins with the premise that God’s grace only extends to a few than it taints the entire way one reads scripture. I find it a curious thing that so many of the ODM sites criticize RW or others because people are flocking to them. Maybe the reason is not because they are watering down the gospel but because they are spreading the GOOD NEWS of the gospel?

People flocked to Jesus from all regions. They did this ont because he was telling everyone what a wretch they were and that if they didn’t repent they would go to hell but because he was bringing peace and healing and hope to a people that were beyond hope. He was a spring of fresh water.

People do not flock to these people:

We do just the opposite. We have a house full of flag waving, Bible toting, abortion button wearing, gay bashing “credible” disciples who manage to scare the bahoogy out of any unsuspecting curious unbeliever who gets within ear shot.

They flock to the one who is handing out food and water and offering words of peace, hope and love. They stick around because they see compassion and then they are sucked into a life of discipleship because they see what a life of love and compassion looks like in Jesus – it is attractive. We are called to do the same.

Who decided that the litmus test for whether the “true gospel” was being preached was how many are offended by it? The only people that were offended by the gospel of Jesus’ day were the religious elites - not the whores, tax collectors and sinners. The ODM’ers might want to consider that.

peace,
Chad

54   Bo Diaz    http://biblegateway.com
August 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Who decided that the litmus test for whether the “true gospel” was being preached was how many are offended by it? The only people that were offended by the gospel of Jesus’ day were the religious elites – not the whores, tax collectors and sinners. The ODM’ers might want to consider that.

Sadly such an observation is usually an exercise in futility. Already there are several posts they’ve feverishly constructed which explain why they really aren’t like the religious elites of Jesus’ day.

And on they go bearing a striking resemblance to the lost son’s older brother, kicking any whores and tax collectors in the shins they happen to come across, all the while mumbling to themselves that that’s precisely what Jesus came to do.

55   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Sadly such an observation is usually an exercise in futility.

lol. You summed me up pretty well! :D

Already there are several posts they’ve feverishly constructed which explain why they really aren’t like the religious elites of Jesus’ day.

And on they go bearing a striking resemblance to the lost son’s older brother, kicking any whores and tax collectors in the shins they happen to come across, all the while mumbling to themselves that that’s precisely what Jesus came to do.

Sadly, you are so right, Bo.

peace.

56   Neil    
August 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Phil – the first semblence of democracy was an act of rebellion when the people voted for a king like the heathen. God gave them Saul. The church today has been deceived into particpating in a continuing mirror of Israel’s rebellion. – Rick

Oh Please! If you don’t want to participate – fine. But let’s not stretch the Scriptures this far out of shape to try and make democracy some form of rebellion…

Neil

57   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Agreed, Neil.

A case can be made from the OT either way. There is a very real, internal debate going on with the writers of the OT as to whether or not a monarchy is a good or bad idea. The tension is seen from Saul onward. To say the OT deems it categorically wrong or right is not really accurate.

58   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

The Deuteronomistic History is a powerful critique of the monarchy. Even the “new Joshua” found in the person of Josiah ends badly.

59   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

It was indeed not God’s will and was sought to emulate the surrounding heathen nations. It was not a true monarchy, it was a form of democracy which eventually led to ruin.

Neil – you are way too fundamentalist for me, I am comfortable being more liberal that are you. :cool:

60   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

monarchy that was democracy?

ummmmmm…………..

ya lost me.

didn’t God annoint David and promise his heirs the throne?

That’s part of the tension in the OT texts.
You have attempts to negotiate the Davidic convenant in light of their experience of disruption.

61   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

then again…

I’m just a piece of crap

62   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

True, nc. But even within the DH we find an allowance for it, and at times even its necessity, in order to mediate the sovereign rule of God among the people. Thus, you get the repeated refrain in Judges: And the people did what was right in their own eyes for there was no king.

I would agree, however, that if we lined up the pro’s and the con’s in the DH the con’s would probably win out.

peace.

63   Neil    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

It was indeed not God’s will and was sought to emulate the surrounding heathen nations. It was not a true monarchy, it was a form of democracy which eventually led to ruin. – Rick

I agree to a point.

I question making a correlation between today’s democracy and the people’s rebellion. The rebellion was not wantng democracy, it was wanting to be like the nations.

I completely reject that there is any correspondence to todays dempcracy, the church, and Israel’s rebellion.

Neil

64   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

The system of kings was given to Israel by their request (vote). As I said, it wasn’t a true democracy and it later splintered. But God’s will was judges. Remember, America is not the church and our government is a true Monarchy with an evrlasting King.

I do enjoy a presidential election year, though, like professional wrestling – entertaining but not real!! :lol:

Listen for the hate, biterness, bragadocia, attacks, slander, libel, false promises, lies, manipulation, theatrics, position changing, and an obscene amount of money while children STARVE around the world. Oh yea, it’s God in action!! :evil:

65   Neil    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I understand that democracy is not the biblical governmental system most American Evangelicals think it is… but neither is participating in it rebellion.

Neil

66   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Chad,

I would def. agree.
The theories about the DH really cast light on the texts…

67   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Wow, Rick…

are you talking about politics or the ODM’s?

forget it…they’re the same thing.

68   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I’m just a piece of crap

Be sure to catch tonight’s primetime Olympic Special,
NC On the Great Wall of China by Wu Flung Poo.

69   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

NC,
I definately agree with your definitive agreement.

70   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Chad!!!

You’re funny!!!!

71   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

If I believed in democracy, I’d vote Neil out!!! I honestly believe with all my heart politics is counter productive to the gospel in almost every way. I judge no one, though.

I belong to the Piece of Crap political party. We’ve been trampled upon for years! :cool:

72   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I belong to the Piece of Crap political party.

Your opponent’s slogan would be: We Are Gonna Wipe You Clean This Election Year!

(I’m practicing to win the AC 360 t-shirt).

73   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

The POC…I’d hate to do a mascot search.

74   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I’d hate to do a mascot search.

Afraid your face might pop up? :P

75   nc    
August 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

oh, all the places we could go…

But this is just soooo immature and demonstrative of the unmanly, feminized, man-loving, syncretistic, liberal cultish, emergent-y, circus-y, abomination filled, “pastors” who, if they only read spurgeon, camp, macarthur, tozer and listened to Washer, would finally be angry enough to please Jesus.

even though you can do nothing to please him anyway.

And THAT’S grace!!!
THAT’S the Gospel!!!!

Hallelujah!!!

76   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

You can do nothing, only God can sovereignly make you live for Him, and when you don’t He blames you. God desires that all should come to repentance, but all means a teeny, tiny, miniscule amount of sinners, and they get saved because they happen to be part of the divine game of solataire.

And why does it bother people if shallow, non-elected sinners believe they are going to heaven? Leave them alone and let them enjoy their final days before hell. Who cares what Rick Warren preaches, only the elect will be saved anyway.

Sitting in the bleachers and hollering “YOU ARE NOT SAVED AND I CAN PROVE IT!!” is not Christianity. What is Christianity? Take a walk just outside Jerusalem and gaze at God on a cross saying “You are not saved but I’m fixing that, just believe”.

Have I ever told you guys I reject all five points of Calvinism because it isn’t in the Scriptures? Oh yea, I have…

77   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Very nice, Rick. Does it worry you when I am in total agreement with you?

You protected Amy. Who is protecting you? :P

78   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Let me present as evidence a quote from Mr. Rush Limbaugh today.

About the Edwards affair he says -

“Given his wife is smarter than he is, and probably naggin him about doin this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk”

Mr. Limbaugh and his disgusting form of idiotic and unchristian talk show should be rejected by any follower of Jesus Christ. JESUS WAS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A CONSERVATIVE!!

It must grieve the heart of God to see His people enjoined to such Christless blether.

79   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

In essence, Mr. Limbaugh blamed Elizabeth Edwards intelligence because, in Limbaughs words, “maybe she wouldn’t shut up!”. Then he suggests Edwards was forced to find a woman who used her mouth to do something other than talk.

This should awaken anyone who once found Limbaugh amusing to realize the vicious, self righteous, natural brute beast that he actually is. To inject yourself into an extra marital affair, including one spouse dealing with cancer, in such a dusgusting and base way is to prove what James has already told us.

The tongue carries with it the fires of hell.

80   nc    
August 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am

yeah…cuz Rush with his amazing track record on marriage is someone we should listen to about…anything.

Sheeesh…the fact that anyone here would defend him, but then say that Bill Clinton had nothing to contribute to our country because of his “character” just shows the depths of partisanship posing as faith.

81   Rezlimey    
August 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

For all you Rush-haters out there: if you think he’s bad, ten minutes of Randi Rhodes’ screed will have you running back to him.

82   nc    
August 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Yeah, yeah…

cuz the only answer to not listening to Rush’s garbage would be a swing to Randi Rhodes.

gimme a break…

83   Rezlimey    
August 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Yeah, yeah…

cuz the only answer to not listening to Rush’s garbage would be a swing to Randi Rhodes.

gimme a break…

Slow down, nc. Don’t get too cynical. Hear me out here.

The day that Jerry Falwell went home to Glory, I thought I would take a listen to see what the “other side” was saying about him. Rhodes showed nothing but disrespect and contempt for the man. Here was a man who stood for righteousness and truth in the midst of a nation that was (and still is) embracing every sort of wickedness under the sun. Obviously, the Left constantly castigated him for it and has never shown any signs of forgiveness – regardless if he apologized for his remarks or not. (Contrast this with Jeremiah Wright, who continues to stand by his hateful remarks, if you will.) You [should] get the picture.

The moral of the story in my post is that if you stand for truth (like Jerry Falwell did), you’ll be prone to attacks from the merciless and wicked Left. If you don’t stand for truth and play the “Can’t we get along?” card like Jimmy Carter and Rick Warren, you’re pretty much left alone by those who are “outside.”

You could always listen to Michael Savage…

84   Rezlimey    
August 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am

I forgot to add something to my last post. One conservative radio host whom I do not recommend is Janet Parshall. That gal does not advocate voting for third party candidates.

Had she lived in 1860, she would not have supported Abraham Lincoln’s Third Party candidacy for POTUS.

85   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am

The moral of the story in my post is that if you stand for truth (like Jerry Falwell did),

Falwell = truth? Well, I guess even a blind squirell finds a nut now and then :)

So anyone who stands for truth as they see it is OK? Muslim extremists who stand for truth and get attacked for it are victims like Falwell?

86   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 18th, 2008 at 9:15 am

Rick,

you wrote:

Mr. Limbaugh and his disgusting form of idiotic and unchristian talk show should be rejected by any follower of Jesus Christ. JESUS WAS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A CONSERVATIVE!!

It must grieve the heart of God to see His people enjoined to such Christless blether.

How very RDM of you. Limbaugh doesn’t claim to be a Christian–although I think his brother has written a book chronicling the systematic persecution of Christians in America. Just because you don’t like the guy doesn’t mean he is worthless any more than the worthless drivel that comes from ODM’s means we don’t like them. It means you share a different perspective than he does and you take offense at his means. He’s not right about everything–but he is documented to be right by an independent source about 97% of the time.

Be nice Rick. You’re just angry because you’re a Notre Dame fan and they fired a great coach in TW.

jerry

PS–are you claiming Jesus was a liberal? Nice.

87   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am

are you claiming Jesus was a liberal?

…more like a libertarian :)

88   nc    
August 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am

my point is that the alternative to conservative radio is not a necessary step to “liberal” radio.

how about not listen to any of these people?

the point with Jerry Falwell is that he didn’t just mis-speak once or twice.

he constantly spewed things and then apologized.
It doesn’t matter if you apologize after a while…because there is something profoundly bigoted, fear driven and domineering in his thinking that was demonstrated over years and years.

he may have been right in principle on some things, but he was a horrible representative. Talk about a person that makes even your supporters cringe.

As a pastor on the ground, it was people like Falwell that made my job hell at times.

On one side with the self-righteous ‘god-squad’ and the other with folk who need Jesus, but wouldn’t give me the time of day simply because “christian” was the label we both would bear.

Jerry Falwell was no hero.
Sorry.
Just wasn’t.

and please don’t trounce out some baddies on the “wicked Left”…because I’m not advocating any of them either.

And the fact that so many so-called conservatives do bring out the other extreme is just an attempt to neutralize deserved critique of them.

THAT’s the point.

seriously…

“wicked left”….
who talks like that?

89   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am

My daughter graduated from Liberty University so I have met Dr. Falwell. He was a good and sincere man who preached the gospel but he was consumed with moralism and nationalism.

I think Jesus would be a pro-life liberal. :)

90   Rezlimey    
August 20th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

nc, you didn’t say anything about Michael Savage. (scratching head). Is he that repulsive to you?

I know a bunch of you can’t stand Ingrid (and I’m sorry to hear that you missed out), but her Crosstalk show really cuts to the core where no one else dares to go (and why I don’t listen to Janet Parshall’s America anymore).

(BTW, interesting note on JP: I was on her email list for a while, and she kept hawking her show podcasts on her emails. I never bought a single show, and I haven’t received a single email from her show in the past few months. Hmmm…)

91   john b    
August 21st, 2008 at 1:53 am

From Rezlimey:

>>>>The moral of the story in my post is that if you stand for truth (like Jerry Falwell did), you’ll be prone to attacks from the merciless and wicked Left. If you don’t stand for truth and play the “Can’t we get along?” card like Jimmy Carter and Rick Warren, you’re pretty much left alone by those who are “outside.”<<<<

Kind of an amusing post because Warren and Jerry Falwell were close friends. Falwell had a big impact on Warren’s ministry and he spoke once on the Old Time Gospel Hour, twice at Super Conference, once at LU’s baccalaureate and LU hosted a 3 day East Coast PDC conference in 2003.

I am an alum of Liberty (and a former staffer at Saddleback) and I loved Jerry. I have had very few heroes but he was one. I disagreed eventually with his identification with the GOP (although I am a hardcore conservative) because that can unnecessarily get in the way of the gospel message.

No, my biggest admiration of Jerry was he eventually left the dry desert of hardcore funnymentalism that focused on external standards and took many churches with him.

92   john b    
August 21st, 2008 at 1:54 am

Oh….and Michael Savage?

An absolute disgusting obnoxious blowhard.

93   pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com/
August 21st, 2008 at 8:20 am

One of the worst things the US government ever did was to take the role of the church in helping the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden.

A few things happened as a result:
They became more needy, because the government helped them even when they lost all motivation to work or produce
Some had more babies out of wedlock, to insure higher payments of welfare
A generation of welfare-reliant people came up and it has become a cycle.

The Biblical mandate is for us to help our bretheren who are in need. Indeed, we are to help the stranger, but mostly our brothers and sisters in Christ who ae hurting. But, as Paul says, this does not negate their responsibility. If they are able bodied, they ought to work for their food. This benefits them in more than one way; for it allows them to gain skill so that they can eventually get out of the poverty cycle and become self-reliant, and hopefully break the (often) generational chain of poverty.