Saddleback - Pro & Con

massdak: what a tragedy it would be if a person lost his chance of gaining salvation due to the lack of a persons method. do you really believe a person can be lost because of poor methods in preaching ?

Yes. It is all dependent on us.


Of course not. I believe strongly in God's sovereignty. But somewhere between the mystery of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, each communicator of God's truth has a responsibility to communicate in an engaging way.

What a tragedy it is for preachers to stand in pulpits communicating timeless truth in an irrelevant manner.

 

I have never been to Saddleback. If I am ever in the area, I will go, just to see how Warren 'does it'.

I have read PDC, and part of PDL. I like both. They are not exactly bible-study material, but they are good solid reads. I feel I have benefitted from both.

SBCbyGRACE wrote, "can something be true and perceived as irrelevant at the same time???" The answer is yes, as all preachers can attest to (preaching your heart out, but all you get are blank stares...ring a bell?).

Overall, I think Warren is doing a good thing. While he may not be digging way down deep in the etxts and doctrines of the bible, he is at least taking what he can and serving it to those who would never have heard it otherwise.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The term "straw man" has "jumped the shark". *laugh*

Can you provide the scripture that says that we have a responsibility to communicate in an engaging way?

I can show you one that says it doesn't matter.

You would have a point about "communicating timeless truth in an irrelevant manner" if the word of Godf wasn't alive. But it is alive and it depends not at all on the flourish or delivery of the speaker but on God alone.

The PDC method is pragmatic, extrabiblical and will only result in masses of people following "another Christ".

Dave

 

Trotter said: preaching your heart out, but all you get are blank stares...ring a bell?

Trotter,

So the prophet Jeremiah was an utter failure? How many years did he preach and not get a convert?

Numbers are not a measure of God's blessing.

If they are, does that mean God is blessing Benny Hinn as well?

Dave

 

I have been wrestling with the PDC concept. Obviously Warren is doing many things right- things we all should be doing. This nagging question keeps after me, however- Is it the church in the marketplace, or the marketplace in the church?

 

Amish: "Can you provide the scripture that says that we have a responsibility to communicate in an engaging way?"

I can provide biblical examples -- Jesus & Paul.


Amish: "I can show you one that says it doesn't matter."

Then I ask again -- why do anything other than read from the text?

Amish: "You would have a point about "communicating timeless truth in an irrelevant manner" if the word of God wasn't alive. But it is alive and it depends not at all on the flourish or delivery of the speaker but on God alone."

I have not suggested it DEPENDS solely on the flourish or delivery of the speaker (another example of how much easier it is to attack the straw man). As I stated above, God is sovereign and humans have a responsibility. Salvation is of God. That is the grander theological picture, but if we live in that world alone, we excuse ourselves into passive irrelevance.

Your blending of theology and methodology stands at the root of the problem here.

Amish: "The PDC method is pragmatic, extrabiblical and will only result in masses of people following "another Christ"."

It is foolish statements like this that discredit the hypers from meaningful dialogue.

Just a side thought: it is amazing to me how many more people commit their lives to Christ when we are intentional about evangelism. Rick Warren is a means whereby God is fulfilling His plan.

In my interaction with many, many hypers I have discovered they often know a lot about John Calvin and the theological mysteries but have usually not been a part of personally leading someone to Christ in a very long time (if ever). I can voice this complaint b/c I have been a part of the theological education subculture for a large part of my life.

It is so easy to take pot shots at those guys who, in your opinion, are "watering down" the gospel b/c it provides an excuse for one's own lack of evangelistic zeal. After all, God is sovereign.

 

Warren has some great ideas and some ideas I would never use. I personally have an issue with his choice of 15 plus translations/versions used. ( I am not an onlyist) I just do not like the paraphrases. But, beside that, there are some things that may or may not work for a particular person or congregation. Like any other man's strategies or methods, analyze it and use what will work and disregard the other stuff.

 

After the events in John chapter 6, Jesus lost a lot of followers because they could not accept his teachings on election. They were false believers and temporary converts. Only the 12 stayed with him.

The beginning of acts only describes 120 by the time pentacost comes around. Not a good track record for someone who had crowds of over 8000 people coming to hear him preach at a time. That is not a very good percentage record.

Even early on in Christs ministry he would not give himself over to them because he knew what was in the hearts of men. They were drawn to the spetacular and not the message. He knew they were just following him because of the "fireworks".


Paul wrote that he did not come to the Corinthians with excellence of speech or wisdom but he was concerned that they knew Christ crucified only.

As for your crying that I am "attacking a straw man" and "I do not understand the PDC model" I give you a quote from the PDC.

On page 219 “It is my deep conviction that anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart . . . . The most likely place to start is with the person’s felt needs.”

The straw man becomes flesh.

Rick Warren also makes the grave error of changing the focus on the service from worship to evangalism. By making your services "seeker sensative" (Which is impossible because there are none who seek God. See Romans) you have changed the focus from God to man.

The purpose driven life does the same thing. There is hardly/nary a mention of repentance or the fact that man is a sinner. And when you preach a partial gospel like that, you are not preach a gospel at all but a conterfit gospel that is devoid of truth.

You cannot sugarcoat the gospel, it is offensive in nature to those who hate God. You cannot shuck and jive people into the kingdom.

When you think that if you get the right sound system, if you refuse to preach doctrine in your sermons, when you dress a certain way or can save people by finding out their felt needs then you have infact said that it is up to man and the reason that people are going to hell and not heaven is because man is not faithful instead of the truth that God is sovereign and no one is going to hell that should have gone to heaven.


As for evenglistic zeal, mine is pretty high. Results do not equal success and if you have "converted people" by being ashamed of the whole gospel, well they are most likely a part of same group of "disciples" that left Christ in John 6.

Dave

 

I agree, JB. It's a matter of "not throwing out the baby with the bath water." There are many, many good thoughts there (as well as innumberable other methods). A good pastor knows his flock, and will choose the method most suited.

There is nothing unbiblical about providing a warm, friendly, and even an enjoyable atmosphere in a church service. Having a church service that engages the congregation in this way does not mean that the gospel is watered down. The man of God still needs to preach the Word of God, regardless of the structure of service. I think this is where the "litmus test" is. What is being preached?

I have heard many preachers, both "pro" and "con" to this issue that fail to give a meaningful message to the congregation, just as there are many who have delivered Spirit-filled messages from God.

 

I agree with J barner.
I have been to Saddleback and there are some things that are good and some things that are not so good.
The purposes are great because so many churchs are focused on one area and not balanced.
The purposes have been around for years but never labeled or layed out so nice.
The positive preaching and not using certain words because the seeker might not understand is not good.
We shouldn't build our church around the seeker.
Steve

 

By Rick Warrens refusal to preach certain doctrine in church services because the "unsaved" will not respond to it is for him to be in error. You should gear your worship services to Christians. Not the unsaved. Worship services are NOT an evangelistic tool. It is so that the body can come together and worship God. The unsaved cannot do that.

His model is good for growing a crowd, it does not grow a church.

Dave

 

Two thoughts come to my mind here.

#1- I agree with you that too often (esp. in IFB circles) that worship has taken a (far) back seat to evangelism. There needs to & should be a balance between the two. Lately, I have seen some positive efforts being made in IFB to once again make worship a priority.

Don't forget that Sunday Evening services were begun only about what, 150 or so years ago?, as purely evangelistic services. Decades ago they ceased to have that solely original function- but services that placed their major emphasis on evangelism have existed long before Rick Warren came on the scene, if one believes that he places too much emphasis on evangelism at the expense of worship. (I haven't come to that conclusion, though.)

#2- From what I've seen, the "seeker service" perspective doesn't purport to reach out to unbelievers "seeking God" necessarily (as you point out)- but rather to unbelievers who don't necessarily know what it is they're seeking or what they lack. Maybe (as they might understand it), they are simply lacking "meaning" or "purpose" in their lives. It's the job of Warren & others who operate from the "seeker sensitive" perspective to fill in the blanks for these people & show them that what they are really seeking/lacking is a Savior.

 

John 6 & Paul

You missed the point. I am not talking about #s of converts (even though the evidence still rests in my corner ... thousands were converted under the preaching ministry of the apostles). What we are talking about is engaging the audience. Jesus was a master at engaging his audience. His words captured their attention (whether they believed or were repulsed). I would contend that his purpose in preaching was different than the purpose of the post-Resurrection preachers (but that's another thread). What we are talking about is methodology. Do I have a responsibility to communicate God's truth in a manner that will engage my audience?

Again, I will return to the question you have refused to answer: if I follow your logic, why should I do anything other than read from the Bible?

On page 219 “It is my deep conviction that anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart . . . . The most likely place to start is with the person’s felt needs.”

You can refer to my earlier post regarding felt needs. As far as Warren's comment, he is speaking in terms of methodology. He is not talking about the broader theological debate on the balance between sovereignty and freedom. He is speaking in practical, everyday, evangelistic terms. Again the issue here is separating theology and methodology. A failure to do so results in one-tracked thinking.

Would you disagree with his assessment in that section that Jesus often met people at their point of need?

Rick Warren also makes the grave error of changing the focus on the service from worship to evangalism. By making your services "seeker sensative" (Which is impossible because there are none who seek God. See Romans) you have changed the focus from God to man.

Seeker-sensitive is simply a term. It does not seek to make the theological statement you try and pin on it.

Warren has developed a time in the life of their church for evangelism to occur (seeker services) and a time for verse-by-verse Bible study (believer's services). He has also re-created the Acts house model for intense discipleship. To try and fit what they do into a single category is missing the whole picture (a common mistake of PDC critics).

The purpose driven life does the same thing. There is hardly/nary a mention of repentance or the fact that man is a sinner.

This simply proves you have not listened to Warren very much. PDL does not reflect the entirety of his preaching.


Simple questions for you: should a church be seeker insensitive?

Should a preacher do anything other than read from the Bible? Should he use illustrations, stories, or give his intepretation of a certain passage? Should a church even have a building, AC, sound system, padded pews, or any other ammenity that makes a person feel comfortable?

If you answer yes to any of these final questions, it is extremely difficult for you to be consistent with your view.

 

Right on, SBC.

 

Larry,

But following christ is not to do so to find purpose. Christ calls us to die to self, to pick up our cross daily and to follow him.

Worship is somehting we come tgether as believers to do and to go out into the world and evagelize. It isn't something we do in-house because we want to impress the yokles with a fireworks and light show set to cool music.

To say that unbelievers are going to come to God more easily because of any effort on our part is not only wrong but prideful.

God is not going to come to you at the end and say "You know what, if only you would have done such and such, your friend would have been saved."

God what? He prepares good works in advance for us so that we may do them. He sets it up, he does the work.

If people would get a proper perspective on God's sovergeinty, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. IE - False conversions and pointing to numbers as if that is an indicator of God's blessing.

It would be very laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Dave

 

Rick Warren on preaching

Amish,

Read this article by Warren on preaching and then we can discuss what he believes about preaching, repetance, etc.

 

Expository preaching is the way to go. Scripture should be backed up by scripture. If scripture isn't clear on a subject then an illustration would be appropiate to help bring out what the bible is trying to say.

AC, Sound system and padded pews are nice, but they have no effect if someone is going to be saved or not.

Let me ask you a question.

Will there be people who are going to hell who could have gone to heaven because you didn't say/do the right thing?

Dave

 

It will take me the weekend, but I promise to read it and give you my thoughts on monday/tuesday.

Dave

 

No argument from me. I agree completely. I don't expect unbelievers to know or accept this though.

Here's where so many IFB's have gotten off-track. Take a look at this excerpt from Jack Hyles' 1962 book Let's Build an Evangelistic Church:


"3. Every Service Should Be An Evangelistic Service

To be sure, every sermon cannot be a sermon just to win the lost. There must he sermons on consecration, dedication, stewardship, faithfulness, etc. But every service should have an evangelistic appeal, with an invitation for sinners to be saved. It is the pastor's job to be certain that each service is evangelistic, thereby not disappointing his people who bring their lost loved ones and friends. Many times church members will bring a lost loved one or friend to the services, and the pastor does not give a strong evangelistic appeal. This discourages the members from bringing lost loved ones and discourages visitation.

In our churches we have tried constantly to make every service a service where it is easy to he saved. If we preach on comfort, we close with the thought that the best comfort is to know that you are saved, that you know you would go to Heaven if you died. If we preach on stewardship, we close by reminding the people that the greatest gift we can give to the Lord is the gift of our lives, and the greatest gift that He has ever given is the gift of His Son and salvation through His Son. If we preach on consecration, we remind our audience in closing that there can be no consecration until there has been regeneration. Regardless of the sermon or the type of service, there can be an evangelistic emphasis, with a pungent invitation to sinners which will keep the people bringing lost ones to the services.

One of our ladies called recently to say, "Brother Hyles, I am bringing a lost loved one to church next Sunday morning, and I just wanted to tell you about it.... Oh, all of our services are evangelistic now, aren't they! Praise the Lord, I can bring my lost loved ones anytime and be sure that you will try to get them saved."


Hyles & his ilk heavily influenced a couple of generations of IFB pastors (many, not all) into essentially squeezing worship out of church services, by making ALL services "evangelistic services". Simply take a look at the title of this section above to verify this.