Rick Warren opposes fundamentalism

[eloidalmanutha]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
Ya know - I really love the Bible. It's cool. It tells us what God wants, what is truth, what is evil.

The Bible tells us a lot of things but it doesn't get us to heaven. It can tell you what to do but it can't do it for you.

A lot of pew sitters know about God but they really do not know Him. They are passionless. They read their Bible and learn about God and still do not really know Him.

Many non-Christians collect old Bibles as antiques. But I would rather know God.
</font>[/QUOTE]very cute, gb - it might help if you read the context of my remarks - although I realize that you just love smoke screens

 

[shannonL]

Gb,

Yes, Criswell gave him his blessing. I read that.
I also found that a little bizzare. Criswell is flesh and bone. So Criswell said something to the effect that "God is going to do great things through you son". What preacher boy hasnt ' had some elder or veteran pastor encourage them like that? I know I have you have to probably at some point.

I know I'm not going to get any backing on this but RW gained his philosophy of ministry from Fuller Theoligical Seminary. BTW, they don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The school dropped that off of their statement a long time ago. They have some wacked out professors with some wacked out ideas down there. Charles Fuller probably wouldn't even attend the seminary that bears his own name. Criswell spent his life defending the Bible. Looks to me like RW did not think much of what Criswell had to say. If he did he sure would not have went to Fuller.
BTW, I have a copy of "Standing on the Promises". It is the story of Criswell's ministry and life. It is a great book. I think any young preacher ought to read it.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Blackbird,

You completely failed to address my point - and Warren's.

No one has suggested that the church not be against sin.

What Warren is saying is that that seems to be what we as Christians are known for - being against stuff.

We can be against stuff in a loving manner. And I have never seen a believer who thinks we should not try to be loving.

But there are churches in which nearly every sermon is about the evils of the NIV, or about the evils of Rick Warren, or about the evils of praise and worship music.

What about love for the lost? Idn't that why WE are even here? - because Christ loved us?

This is what Paul referred to as a tinkling cymbal.

Like I have said before - being against stuff is the easy part!

I would like for Christians to be know as the most loving people around - not the most judgmental. And that does not require being soft doctrinally.

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We need both; reaching and keeping. Surely you didn't mean to say they are mutually exclusive?

I am not suggesting they are mutually exclusive that is why I used the word "focused". What I am suggesting is that a church will usually focus more attention on one of those two things. Most tend to focus on keeping.

For example if your church decided to become seeker-sensitive and focus on reaching unbelievers, you probably would seek to find another church. You would find a church that focused its attention on expositional preaching, discipleship, etc. You would find a church focused primarily on the flock. Would you say this is a fair analysis? </font>[/QUOTE]I was in a church that became "seeker-driven" and we lost hundreds of people, including the pastor, over the ensuing debate. It was awful.

This is now a matter of "preference", perhaps, more than an issue of ecclesiastical dogmatism, but I am convinced from scripture that the focus should be on creating disciples, not "reaching" the lost. In other words, as we grow Christians deeply in their faith on Sundays, then they will take the good news out to their world and each will be evangelists in a sense. Yes, reaching the lost is a primary goal for all of us, but Jesus said to go and "make disciples" and that takes more than passing out tracts. And, I am not accusing you of doing that, of course. I am confident that you have a desire to see the lost won.

I hope this makes sense. I think the church is for believers and, although "seekers" are welcome and should be treated very well, they aren't the main focus. Yes, they should have an opportunity to be saved while there, but growing believers in the Word of God is the main purpose of the Lord's Day worship.

This is my opinion - I am not criticizing other views on this area. These are my convictions since you asked me.

 

[All about Grace]

I was in a church that became "seeker-driven" and we lost hundreds of people, including the pastor, over the ensuing debate. It was awful.

This is now a matter of "preference", perhaps, more than an issue of ecclesiastical dogmatism, but I am convinced from scripture that the focus should be on creating disciples, not "reaching" the lost. In other words, as we grow Christians deeply in their faith on Sundays, then they will take the good news out to their world and each will be evangelists in a sense. Yes, reaching the lost is a primary goal for all of us, but Jesus said to go and "make disciples" and that takes more than passing out tracts. And, I am not accusing you of doing that, of course. I am confident that you have a desire to see the lost won.

I hope this makes sense. I think the church is for believers and, although "seekers" are welcome and should be treated very well, they aren't the main focus. Yes, they should have an opportunity to be saved while there, but growing believers in the Word of God is the main purpose of the Lord's Day worship.

This is my opinion - I am not criticizing other views on this area. These are my convictions since you asked me.

I respect your opinion. I would say most churches fit in the same category as you describe. I was in the same boat not too many years ago.

Here's a fair and simple question: based on passages such as Luke 15 as well as the example of Jesus on earth, do you believe the focus of God is more on believers or unbelievers? And I am not looking for the "His own glory" answer here. We all agree God is seeking His own glory.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Rick Warren opposes fundamentalism

As would I hope all Christians oppose fundamentalism, or at least strict fundementalism, such as hyperfundamentalism. Adhering to Christian fundamentals is worthy, but there are way too many Christians who are fundamentalist before they are Christian. That's wrong.

 

[Charles E.Smith]

I did not know that Warren went to Fuller. I read some of the Purpose Driven Church and saw he got his MDiv at Southwestern. If he got his doctorate or some other degree at Fuller I would be concerned. As for Criswell it doesn't make much sense for me that he wrote the introduction to 'The Purpose Driven Church'. He wrote it in 1995 so I would think he still had his wits about him since I saw some lectures he gave at Criswell College in 97. I guess this is just a example of all of us having our flaws.

 

[Charles E.Smith]

I'm not sure if this was posted before but this is from Warren's entry in Wikipedia.

"Warren holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from California Baptist University in Riverside, California, a Master of Divinity degree from Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, as well as a Doctor of Ministry degree from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He also holds several honorary doctorates."
So he does have a doctorate degree from Fuller. I guess Golden Gate is quite a drive from Southern Ca. but I would think there would be a more conservative seminary in Southern CA (Masters comes to mind)

 

[Johnv]

Charles, Fuller Seminary is not in the San Francisco area, it is in Southern California. It is on the border of Los Angeles and Riverside County.

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I was in a church that became "seeker-driven" and we lost hundreds of people, including the pastor, over the ensuing debate. It was awful.

This is now a matter of "preference", perhaps, more than an issue of ecclesiastical dogmatism, but I am convinced from scripture that the focus should be on creating disciples, not "reaching" the lost. In other words, as we grow Christians deeply in their faith on Sundays, then they will take the good news out to their world and each will be evangelists in a sense. Yes, reaching the lost is a primary goal for all of us, but Jesus said to go and "make disciples" and that takes more than passing out tracts. And, I am not accusing you of doing that, of course. I am confident that you have a desire to see the lost won.

I hope this makes sense. I think the church is for believers and, although "seekers" are welcome and should be treated very well, they aren't the main focus. Yes, they should have an opportunity to be saved while there, but growing believers in the Word of God is the main purpose of the Lord's Day worship.

This is my opinion - I am not criticizing other views on this area. These are my convictions since you asked me.

I respect your opinion. I would say most churches fit in the same category as you describe. I was in the same boat not too many years ago.

Here's a fair and simple question: based on passages such as Luke 15 as well as the example of Jesus on earth, do you believe the focus of God is more on believers or unbelievers? And I am not looking for the "His own glory" answer here. We all agree God is seeking His own glory. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello again,

Jesus' parable of the prodigal as well as his earthly ministry clearly show that He came "to seek and to save" the lost; I couldn't agree more. However, there was no "church" until the day of pentecost. That was when the believers started meeting regularly and broke bread on the Lord's day. And, that is where we should look for ecclesiastical guidance. For example, Acts 2:42 says "and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." I think that is what the church is about; growing strong believers who will leave the building and take the gospel into all the world.

The mission field isn't inside the church, it's outside. I can't imagine the early church striving to get a lot of "visitors."

Having said that, I love it when unsaved visitors come to church because they will hear the gospel and see authentic worship from people who know Christ. But, most of the folks on a given Sunday are already believers, and they need to be taught the apostles' doctrine....

Also, consider that the pastoral epistles give certain instructions to elders, deacons, etc. These are the portions of scripture we should turn to for insight on how to "do church". I don't think Luke 15 is a primary reference to the "ekklesia".

Thanks...

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by bjonson:
I can't imagine the early church striving to get a lot of "visitors."

They did get enough to accuse them of false things.

Jude 12,13, "These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever."

I know that communism bred a lot of visitors who were not there for the gospel.

 

[bjonson]

Please notice the verb in my post:

"striving to get a lot of visitors"

The early church didn't throw a 40 days of purpose campaign, for example, in order to attract people...

Just trying to have some fun. Ya'll need to read these posts more carefully.

 

[shannonL]

Charles Smith,

I read a copy of RW's disertation on a link somewhere but can't remember exactly. Unless I'm nuts that Wagner fellow oversaw it. I think his name is Peter or whatever. Anyway he is the same man who is deep into this dominionism movement. He has got some books out about "apostleship" He has this idea that God has appointed some as apostles over particular cities or regions in order to activate and guide the church into reclaiming what is rightfully its own. I don't have time to get into it. It is kind of wild. All I know is this Wagner dude was and I believe still is a prof. at Fuller and he and RW kind of think alike. RW is a big fan of John Wimber too. I believe he was the dude that formed the Vineyard churches?
AT any rate alot of folk on this board don't think it is important where you went to school and the associations you have. I think it is. We all are influenced, impacted or indoctrinated somewhere by somebody in some form or fashion. To me choosing to go to Fuller for a degree simply tells me where your headed and the company you like to keep.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by bjonson:
The early church didn't throw a 40 days of purpose campaign, for example, in order to attract people...

No they had a 365 days a year campaign. They gave all they had for Christ and would be viewed as a cult by most today.

 

[bjonson]

you just don't get it, do you gb93433?

Read Acts 2:42 and see what their activities were:

prayer; the apostle's doctrine; fellowship; communion.

It had nothing to do with marketing.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by bjonson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We need both; reaching and keeping. Surely you didn't mean to say they are mutually exclusive?

I am not suggesting they are mutually exclusive that is why I used the word "focused". What I am suggesting is that a church will usually focus more attention on one of those two things. Most tend to focus on keeping.

For example if your church decided to become seeker-sensitive and focus on reaching unbelievers, you probably would seek to find another church. You would find a church that focused its attention on expositional preaching, discipleship, etc. You would find a church focused primarily on the flock. Would you say this is a fair analysis? </font>[/QUOTE]I was in a church that became "seeker-driven" and we lost hundreds of people, including the pastor, over the ensuing debate. It was awful.

This is now a matter of "preference", perhaps, more than an issue of ecclesiastical dogmatism, but I am convinced from scripture that the focus should be on creating disciples, not "reaching" the lost. In other words, as we grow Christians deeply in their faith on Sundays, then they will take the good news out to their world and each will be evangelists in a sense. Yes, reaching the lost is a primary goal for all of us, but Jesus said to go and "make disciples" and that takes more than passing out tracts. And, I am not accusing you of doing that, of course. I am confident that you have a desire to see the lost won.

I hope this makes sense. I think the church is for believers and, although "seekers" are welcome and should be treated very well, they aren't the main focus. Yes, they should have an opportunity to be saved while there, but growing believers in the Word of God is the main purpose of the Lord's Day worship.

This is my opinion - I am not criticizing other views on this area. These are my convictions since you asked me. </font>[/QUOTE]Folks, listen!!! THIS post is probably one of the BEST posts available on the BB pertaining to PDL and church response!! Thank you, bjonson for reaffirming my belief in what the church is and isn't!!! And I mean that truthfully and honestly!!

 

[bjonson]

blackbird,

Thank you - I am encouraged by this.

I also wanted to thank you for editing a couple of posts that got too personal. I should have been more careful.

God bless,
Brian

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by bjonson:
you just don't get it, do you gb93433?

Read Acts 2:42 and see what their activities were:

prayer; the apostle's doctrine; fellowship; communion.

It had nothing to do with marketing.

If you add the fact that they worshiped, ministered to one another, and did missions, you have the basis behind PDL.


Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

You see even though they didn't call it PDL, they sure enough had a purpose.

 

[bjonson]

tinytim,

Yes, they had a purpose. But, that purpose was based on the apostle's doctrine and that has been preserved in the Word of God. When you read the apostle Paul's NT letters you see clear, bold, uncompromising truth. I think it has been demonstrated repeatedly that Rick Warren has difficulty being clear about his position and the exclusivity of the Gospel. There is a huge difference between his PDL and the teachings of the apostles found in the scriptures.

I realize this isn't the view shared by everyone; I just wanted to speak out.

 

[Don]

Apparently a hot topic.

Please forgive me for not reading all 8 pages. I just want to ask: Has anyone compared "The Purpose-Driven Life" to a typical management or organizational behavior textbook?