Rick Warren on the condition of man...

Actually these statements are located just a few sentences below the original one. Context is everything. That's why it is frustrating for people to accuse Warren of distorting the gospel based upon a statement they have yanked from its intent.

I am also an admirer of MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Horton, and White. Can you show the connection there? Re-read some of my posts. I am a learner of a number of scholars, teachers, and pastors.

While I disagre vehemently with the Hyles movement, I do remember one statement he made that I have applied to my life (even though he did not seem to practice it). Hyles once said: "Every person is my teacher b/c every person knows something I do not know."

Great statement. I learn from a number of people who disagree with each other on certain matters. Doesn't make either party absolutely right all the time.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Do you believe it is wrong to do anything to attract a sinner other than preach the gospel at him/her? Is there any legitimate method for sharing Christ with people other than expository preaching (which in itself is a method)? Should a preacher use illustrations?

You will not attend Saddleback on a weekend and not hear the gospel presented, so I would say it is central to the ministry.

I do disagree with you here. Most unbelievers are not looking for the truth. They are looking for relief from some human need. What is wrong with sharing biblical principles that meet a need that in return creates a hunger for more truth? I have no problem teaching a class on parenting and opening up the class to unbelievers who will hear biblical guidelines on how to parent and then as a result will hear the gospel. I believe there is nothing wrong with bridge-building with the intent to evangelize.

Don't categorize me here. I am not a felt-needs preacher. I preach expositional-applicational messages. But I see nothing wrong with the church providing opportunities to meet people's needs from a biblical perspective with the intent of making disciples.

If I follow your logic, we would close our food pantry, discontinue our ESL classes, shut down our grieving parents and troubled teen seminars, and stop preparing meals for the hungry. And guess what? When that happens, we will have NO opportunity to tell them about Jesus.

I believe Jesus practiced a form of needs ministry. He began with people's needs (what must I do to be saved?), hurts (heal me Son of David), and interests (should we pay taxes to Caesar?). The end of Matthew 25 is needs meeting ministry.

While I do not endorse every level of felt-needs ministry, I do believe in striving to help meet people's needs in order to share Jesus with them.

We can agree to disagree here.

 

Expository preaching seems to be the best way to keep scripture in context and allows to expound on each detail of scripture instead of looking over things.

Everything Jesus said was *the Word*...He was God,so what He said is what preachers should be saying. Are there different styles of preaching,yes,different personalities of men...etc. This does not excuse a focus on methodology over the Word. I'm not sure how a feel about a lot of illustrations in a sermon,I defintely don't think showing movie clips is appropriate for teaching. I think the word of God should be handled accuratley and carefully,not in a silly or non serious way(I'm not saying he does this,but I have heard this kind of preaching before....in a seeker sensitive Rick W. style church.)

So,I'm not sure what to say,except,that anything that is more prominent in a worship service than God's word,I would have to say is not correct methodology...I'm not sure if I agree with whole methodology argument. It is a means to the end....I feel the means should also be biblical. If it is,then fine,if not,then we shouldn't do it.

 

SBC,

You seem to be one not to mince words. Allow me to return the compliment.

Your posts are exemplars of the trends in the church in recent years, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

This is evident in your constant appeal to your reformed theology while at the same time you defend the employment of worldly means to do the work of the ministry.

The only reason that one does not run to Christ, or flee from the wrath to come, is the same reason one does not run out of a burning building; he doesn't know it's on fire. But God has equipped His ministers with spiritual weapons (prayer, fasting, the Word of God) to open the eyes of the lost so that he may see his miserable condition, look unto Christ and be saved.

God did not equip us with exhibitionistic methods of the world. But you go so far as to equate Christ's miracles to exhibitions designed to titillate spectators and pique their interest.

To further aggravate your stand you point to the popularity of a certain method as a stamp of God's approval, forgetting that Christ commanded us not to judge according to the outward appearance, but according to truth and righteousness.

We don't have to know Rick Warren to make righteous judgments about his methods. We merely have to know Christ and the Bible. The Christ I know was not beautiful according the outward appearance. Quite the contrary. He hath no form nor comliness, and when we shall see Him there is no beauty that we should desire Him.

Neither did he shout or cause His voice to be heard in the streets.

Better five true converts than five thousand nominal Christians any day.

[ November 22, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Opinion noted

Worldly by your definition. You are entitled to this opinion but that does not mean you are categorically right.

Agreed.

I believe I said Jesus' miracles were "signs" that pointed to His person and mission. John's phrase -- not mine. Would you agree that the miracles piqued the interest of the crowds?

Although some continue to accuse me of a "successful therefore correct" methodology, I have never said that Warren's method is right b/c it is successful. What I have suggested is that Warren is an evangelical who is preaching the pure gospel and whose ministry is generating disciples, therefore, one should guard against false accusations and misrepresentations. Of course truth and righteousness are the standards, and no one has shown how Warren is outside the realm of either.

Would you admit that your "righteous judgments" are based upon your own interpretive suppositions (much like your views on CCM)?

Again I would simply say: were people attracted to Jesus? Did He meet them on the level of their needs, interests, and hurts?

W/o knowing you and whether you fit into this category, I will simply suggest that most of those who have used this line of argument in my discussions of this issue are involved in ministries that are seeing little Great Commission fruit.

It makes them feel better to make statements like: "success is not determined by numbers" or "I would rather have one committed Christian than 100 uncommitted" or "those churches neglect discipleship and create shallow believers" or "they are all about numbers". Making such faulty statements allows them to feel spiritual while neglecting the essence of the Great Commission.

I don't know or care whether you fall into that category. I am just speaking of my personal experiences in "Reformed" circles (where this line of reasoning usually originates).

I know we will never agree on this issue. I have read too many of your other posts. We simply have a difference of perspective. I believe God is the author of creativity and that the church should employ creative methods to proclaim an unchanging message. I believe that if a method is not violating a clear biblical principle, it can and should be used to share Christ. You seem to believe that if it is not mandated in the text, it is off limits. IMHO your opinion is inconsistent. But I respect it. In the end, your opinion is no more biblical or spiritual or correct than mine. I believe in infiltrating culture and society. You seem to believe in isolating from it.

As Jesus told the disciples, those who are not against me are for me. In this case both sides are "for" Christ, therefore I am not going to condemn either position.

 

I know we will never agree on this issue. I have read too many of your other posts. We simply have a difference of perspective. I believe God is the author of creativity and that the church should employ creative methods to proclaim an unchanging message.

If by creative you mean "exhibitionistic," you are wrong. You as much as admit you have no Scriptural example or basis for your philosophy of ministry or methods. You only have your opinion.

And though I don't know you, the people who usually make the arguments you do are more concerned with building numbers and their own prestige than with building the Kingdom of God.

I doubt if you were preaching the pure Gospel, you would see much excitement yourself. I merely have to point you to the interest generated by the Bible-reading forums on this board as an example.

Can't get much more spiritual or true than the Bible or the Pilgrim's Progress. Maybe if we started a lottery to generate interest?

[ November 22, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Also,SBC,I just wanted to add(since numbers was brought up)...our church is a pretty large church,and I am constantly hearing about true repentance taking place from friends,neighbors, as others share their stories of how they shared the gospel with someone and they were saved...God's word is true and we can depend on that to work,but you know what else...I have also heard of some sharing Christ with lost folks and they rejected the gospel and those people(They are being avoided now)Hmmm...You see,I believe God brings those to Himself,we don't have to *do* anything except be obedient to clear scripture and living out the Word,and sharing Christ. That's it,pretty simple...God does the work of salvation and I don't feel the need to make church about anything other than His word. He grows his church,not us. I am in a healthy thriving church,growing in depth,spiritual maturity,and in numbers,too. We are very thankful...but if the numbers went down,we would not do anything different...we(well,not me,you know what I mean) would keep preaching Christ and his glorious word and depend on God for any kind of additions He chooses to make. Success of a church is this only question....Is it biblical? Our committment is to being biblical and growing in depth of minsitry,not breadth(that is God's business).

 

I've read the posts, and you know the old saying, "Fools jump in where angels fear to tread"? Well....

The original question had to do with THIS quote. So, I will respond to it and then add my "two cents worth" in a following post.

1) "Man is made in the spiritual image of God, to be like Him in character." Man is made in the image of God. This is TRUE. I'm not sure what the "spiritual" image of God means. Character and image are no doubt linked. Only believers are conformed to the image of Christ, although all are called to turn to Christ, turn away from their sins, and to be conformed to the holy image of Christ.

2) "[Man] is the supreme object of God's creation." The "crowning" of creation, yes. The Supreme object of God's creation, no. God is the supreme object. He created to glorify HIMSELF. He has made all things FOR Himself. We exist for God's pleasure.

3) "Although man has tremendous potential for good, he is marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God called sin. This attitude separates man from God."
This definition of sin (as an "attitude") significantly decreases the severity and heinousness of sin. Sin is more than an attitude. It is a moral corruption which extends to every part of an indivudal's being. It is an attitude, an action and a CONDITION.

Conclusion: Mr. Warren needs to "beef up" his statements here regarding sin.

Rev. G

 

I am part of the "Reformed" camp (and from reading all of your posts, just let me say, "I'm more Reformed than any of you!" Sarcasm with a smile. ), and I think that every Reformed pastor should read Rick Warren's 'Purpose-Driven Church'. It is a very helpful book with some great insight.

I would also say that there is a major flaw with the book. While Warren states that worship is the ultimate purpose of the Church, his book (methodology) does not reflect that reality. In practice he starts with human beings rather than beginning with God, and this leads to faulty methodology. Let me say this for Warren, though -IMO he is the very best that the "church growth" crowd has to offer. He beats Hybels and Schuller and Young and everybody else by miles and miles. He is attempting to do things biblically, although I think because of some faulty theology he has erred in methodology.

Now, since I have dared to tread in dangerous places, I'll go ahead and make this assertion:

Be careful with your words, friends. Remember, we are accountable for "every idle word." It is possible to disagree with others and still be civil. Okay, you can verbally bludgeon me now!

Rev. G

 

You really don't want me to get started on a discussion regarding Schuller, do you? Trust me, you don't - then I'll have to eat my words about being careful about one's speech.

Rev. G

 

Rev G,

I am just wondering how you can recommend this book,if you admit is is mixing some truth with some error? Aren't there much better books out there to read,which are all truth and biblical?

There is a book called "Doing God's Business God's Way" by Dr. George Zemek that clearly speaks truth and disqualifies the church growth movements of today.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Doggone it, PTW, I can't stop thinking about Schuller now. Watch for a post...

Rev. G

 

1) Because it gives some great advice on practical matters with handling guests at church (that no Reformed writer has addressed).

2) The five principles he advances in the book are solidly biblical!

3) My favorite authors are St. Augustine and Martin Luther. Augustine taught paedobaptism, as did Luther. Augustine taught that sex was evil. Luther used some anti-Semitic language. Truth mixed with error. The same thing could be said about Calvin (paedobaptism, etc.). We should not avoid reading books / articles, etc., just because we fear there may be in error. Rather, we should understand our limitations as vessels of clay. We should also be guarded against heresy - while remembering there is a great difference between heresy and error.

I have one book by Dr. Zemek that was given to me just a few weeks ago. Sharp guy! I have not heard of this book you mentioned (until now), but I'd like to get a copy. I'll keep my eyes out for it. Sounds like good reading.

Rev. G

 

For those interested, I've begun a post on Mr. Schuller under the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section.

 

SBC,

Did you bail?

 

If by creative you mean exhibitionistic, then YOU are wrong. I believe there is plenty of biblical precedence for communicating the gospel in a clear fashion in a manner that will: a) meet people's needs, b) draw their attention, and c) communicate in a relevant fashion.

What you need to provide is biblical evidence that employing human methods (which defines all methods) is against scripture.

Can you show me where the Bible allows for pianos, air-conditioning, pulpits, sermon illustrations, hymn books, or any other human method employed?

Again you seem to assume that since the Bible does not say "use praise songs", then they are forbidden. I maintain your position is inconsistent (as demonstrated by your lack of evidence in other threads for the use of a piano, organ, etc).

Without sounding trite, numbers are souls. That does not mean we compromise the gospel to add to our membership list (which is an oxymoron in Warren's program). It simply means that we need to get the gospel to as many as possible.

If Warren is so concerned about prestige, why would he refuse TV opportunities, most speaking engagements, etc. To know Rick Warren is to know a man who is far from concerned about publicity.

Answer this question: if numbers are irrelevant, why are they mentioned in the Acts accounts? Why did God chose to say 5k or 3k? Why are they mentioned in the feeding miracle? Numbers reveal the magnitude of God's work. We are not to be driven by them but they are not irrelevant either. A healthy church is a growing church.

Based upon your logic, the apostles were either preaching a distorted gospel or they were very boring b/c there sure was a lot of excitement in the EC.

Could you go back and address some of the issues I raised in my previous post?

 

Molly:

Your position is fine. I respect it. I doubt that your church is not doing anything except preaching the Word. Does your church have a nursery? Do you sing songs? Do you have a piano? Do you give announcements? What about programs? Do you have fellowships (if it is a Baptist church, then you have a few casseroles occasionally )? If you do any of these things, then you are employing methods.

Everyone:

I agree with most of what RevG says in his posts. I have defended Warren through many posts and threads on BB. Not because I buy into everything Warren says or does (there are actually some other leaders I "follow" more closely than Warren), but because I simply feel Warren's paradigm reminds us upon what the church should be focused and Warren often gets falsely labeled (as demonstrated on this forum).

Some fall into the trap of arguing that methodologies are black and white issues (most often as defined by the one criticizing ). They are not. The Bible nowhere provides a right-wrong paradigm for church methodologies. If it did, evangelicals would not be having this discussion. The fundamentals are fundamentals for a reason--they are the foundations of our faith. Notice we are not arguing over the validity of the resurrection. Why?

Methodologies do not fall into the category of essentials, therefore we must allow for flexibility. I appeal again to the concentric circles paradigm I outlined in the previous thread. Methodologies are not a part of the "inner circle". So in the end, those who are not against Jesus are for Him.

[ November 23, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

What you need to provide is biblical evidence that employing human methods (which defines all methods) is against scripture.

Knowing that during the first century there was no shortage of theatre troups, mimes, minstrels, jesters, clowns, dancers and any other kind of exhibition that exists today, I find it significant that we don't find one example of Christ or His apostles utilizing any of them.

Quite the contrary, that kind of thing is soundly condemned: And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

human methods (which defines all methods)

Contrived and forced definitions do not help your case. Are you serious that you do not see a delineation in the Scriptures between human and divine?

Can you show me where the Bible allows for pianos...

Nope. And you have not read many of my posts if you think I will defend the use of any kind of instrument in Christian worship.

...air-conditioning, pulpits...hymn books...

I've told you before, technological devices are not methods of communication, and have no place in this discussion.

...sermon illustrations...

Define sermon illustration

...or any other human method employed?...

See quote of St. Paul above.

 

SBC,

I think there is a difference between singing songs,making announcements,and having fellowship time for the body of believers and doing other things to *attract* unbelievers. These things are not being used as a bait and switch methodology. It is fellowship,corporate worship,and getting info out to fellow believers....your point is ...uh...not a point. there is a big differnce in those 2 things. No coorelation whatsoever.

Does a seeker sensitive church teach anguishing over sin,(our natural state) and offer great thanksgiving for God seeing fit to elect those into His kingdom,although we all deserve death? That was brought to mind to me from a fellow believer that suggested that some churches do not teach this anguishing over sin...seeing our need for a saviour...dying to self,even suffering for the faith. When we see our natural state,and know what God has done for us in Christ,how can we be so flippant and light when it comes to the excellencies of God? We need to be about proclaiming the excellencies of God.

 

Argument from silence. We have no idea what the EC employed. We do know Jesus communicated in a fashion that was relevant.

Great verse. It reminds us that it is only by the power of the Spirit through the gospel that lives are changed. We all agree that it is only the power of God that transforms lives. The question is: does God limit Himself to your preferred method of preaching or proclamation? The answer: NO There is no evidence that Rick Warren depends any less upon the power of God than John MacArthur.

Does God work through human means?

This statement just reveals the futility of this discussion. We are definitely on opposite ends of the spectrum in the isolationist -vs- infiltration debate.

Do you attend a church that uses a piano or organ?

Technological devices are methods that aid in the communication of the gospel. Try starting a church in our culture w/o any of these devices and you might quickly discover how beneficial they are in the communication of the gospel. They are human methods.

Any extra-biblical material (visual or verbal) that helps make the sermon more understandable. It is a method to help the hearer understand the message clearly.

This discussion is becoming fruitless. You believe I am wrong and I believe you are wrong. In the end, we may both be wrong . Both sides can provide scriptural support for why they believe what they believe.

I believe it is very difficult to be consistent in your position, but I can respect it. I recognize you are "for" Christ and not "against" Him.

These threads have run the full gamut and no one has been persuaded. I just hope people are a little more careful who they condemn and upon what basis they do so.