-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rick Warren opposes fundamentalism
- Thread starter bjonson
- Start date
All about Grace
New Member
Just a couple of observations ...
1. To bypass the ministry of Jesus and suggest that it should not be a part of the development of our ecclesiology is absurd. It is obvious from the opening words of Acts that the church is called to continue what Jesus "began" to do and teach. The ministry of Jesus serves as the FOUNDATION to our ecclesiology. What did Jesus come to do? Seek and save the lost.
It is interesting that sinners were attracted to Jesus and Jesus was attracted to sinners. It was the religious people of his day that Jesus avoided. One cannot diagnose the ministry of Jesus without recognizing the heart of God is to pursue the lost. I am not even sure Jesus would attend most churches if he were alive today. He would be spending his time with the lost.
2. The Acts model provides overwhelming evidence that evangelism was at the heart of the church's mission and development. Thousands of people came to Christ in single day events. Thousands of unbelievers heard Peter and the apostles speak and as a result of hearing believed. To insinuate that the model of Acts focused on discipleship is a misrepresentation of the facts.
3. To invoke the Acts model as the primary interpretation of how we are to "do church" is also misguided. For one, the NT model is in no way similar to the modern "church building" model. There is no evidence there were any church buildings for the first 300 years. The way they "did church" in the first century is primarily descriptive not prescriptive.
With that said, there are some obvious elements that help define the purpose of the church in all ages -- Warren has articulated 5 of the most common. Churches should be engaged in each of those 5 purposes.
4. There is no NT mandate on what is to happen when a body of believers gathers (because again there was no central "gathering time" as we have created today). What is clear from the NT is that worship, evangelism, discipleship, prayer, edification, etc. all occurred at different gatherings. Thus these elements should be included in the overall life of a church.
What is not prescribed are the hows, whens, how oftens, etc. that these events are to take place. A church that focuses exclusively on evangelism to the neglect of the other purposes is not following the overall example. But just because a church chooses to use a certain time, certain day of the week, and certain format to fulfill its mandate to evangelize the lost does not mean they are violating some scriptural principle.
Discipleship occurs in a different format at a different time in our church. That is simply not the purpose of our Sunday morning gatherings. We use that environment to focus on reaching the lost and helping people take a step closer to being a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Our culture helps determine this decision for us. Other cultures may call for different approaches.
Obviously you prefer a church that focuses their central time on discipleship. That's fine. I have just discovered that there is an innate danger in churches that focus their prime time opportunities on discipleship of becoming extremely inward focused. And there is no place in the NT in the ministry of Jesus or the NT church were an inward focus is encouraged. The exact opposite is true.
This is evidenced by your example above of a church that decided to focus its prime time on evangelism. What ensued? Division. Why? Eyes were inward and not outward.
5. This is another discussion that is not essential to this dialogue, but I would suggest that true discipleship does not have as much to do with head knowledge - gaining factual knowledge as much as it does with how we treat other people. When Jesus was given the opportunity to explain what it means to be a Christ-follower, he never explained it in terms of knowledge or a "deeper" understanding of truth. He always explained it in terms of relationship development and the treatment of others. You know the paradigm - love God, love others, love your enemies. To me, that is the heart of discipleship.
1. To bypass the ministry of Jesus and suggest that it should not be a part of the development of our ecclesiology is absurd. It is obvious from the opening words of Acts that the church is called to continue what Jesus "began" to do and teach. The ministry of Jesus serves as the FOUNDATION to our ecclesiology. What did Jesus come to do? Seek and save the lost.
It is interesting that sinners were attracted to Jesus and Jesus was attracted to sinners. It was the religious people of his day that Jesus avoided. One cannot diagnose the ministry of Jesus without recognizing the heart of God is to pursue the lost. I am not even sure Jesus would attend most churches if he were alive today. He would be spending his time with the lost.
2. The Acts model provides overwhelming evidence that evangelism was at the heart of the church's mission and development. Thousands of people came to Christ in single day events. Thousands of unbelievers heard Peter and the apostles speak and as a result of hearing believed. To insinuate that the model of Acts focused on discipleship is a misrepresentation of the facts.
3. To invoke the Acts model as the primary interpretation of how we are to "do church" is also misguided. For one, the NT model is in no way similar to the modern "church building" model. There is no evidence there were any church buildings for the first 300 years. The way they "did church" in the first century is primarily descriptive not prescriptive.
With that said, there are some obvious elements that help define the purpose of the church in all ages -- Warren has articulated 5 of the most common. Churches should be engaged in each of those 5 purposes.
4. There is no NT mandate on what is to happen when a body of believers gathers (because again there was no central "gathering time" as we have created today). What is clear from the NT is that worship, evangelism, discipleship, prayer, edification, etc. all occurred at different gatherings. Thus these elements should be included in the overall life of a church.
What is not prescribed are the hows, whens, how oftens, etc. that these events are to take place. A church that focuses exclusively on evangelism to the neglect of the other purposes is not following the overall example. But just because a church chooses to use a certain time, certain day of the week, and certain format to fulfill its mandate to evangelize the lost does not mean they are violating some scriptural principle.
Discipleship occurs in a different format at a different time in our church. That is simply not the purpose of our Sunday morning gatherings. We use that environment to focus on reaching the lost and helping people take a step closer to being a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Our culture helps determine this decision for us. Other cultures may call for different approaches.
Obviously you prefer a church that focuses their central time on discipleship. That's fine. I have just discovered that there is an innate danger in churches that focus their prime time opportunities on discipleship of becoming extremely inward focused. And there is no place in the NT in the ministry of Jesus or the NT church were an inward focus is encouraged. The exact opposite is true.
This is evidenced by your example above of a church that decided to focus its prime time on evangelism. What ensued? Division. Why? Eyes were inward and not outward.
5. This is another discussion that is not essential to this dialogue, but I would suggest that true discipleship does not have as much to do with head knowledge - gaining factual knowledge as much as it does with how we treat other people. When Jesus was given the opportunity to explain what it means to be a Christ-follower, he never explained it in terms of knowledge or a "deeper" understanding of truth. He always explained it in terms of relationship development and the treatment of others. You know the paradigm - love God, love others, love your enemies. To me, that is the heart of discipleship.
If we can't get our primary interpretation of how to "do church" from the book of Acts, which is in God's Word then where do we get our "primary interpretion" to direct the church and her endeavors. You almost make the early church model sound irrelavant. Is the primary interpetation to be given to us by the business world?
If Acts is not a prescription for the chruch and its workings etc... Where is the prescription given?
I assume the bible is the supreme authority in all matters in your church yet you tend to give off the impression that we need to look in places other than the Bible to meet the demands and rigors of "doing church" today.
If Acts is not a prescription for the chruch and its workings etc... Where is the prescription given?
I assume the bible is the supreme authority in all matters in your church yet you tend to give off the impression that we need to look in places other than the Bible to meet the demands and rigors of "doing church" today.
eloidalmanutha
New Member
Yes, Peter Wagner is still at Fuller, and also does speaking tours in many full gospel/word of faith churches - his theology would definitely fall under that "umbrella".
Paul Wimber is probably the biggest influence into today's "move of the spirit". It was through his "teaching" and "instruction" that the move of tongues in this country was generated - after he had just returned from Africa and observed the ritual witchcraft there. He also contributed to the "Jesus Movement" and headed up Vineyard, as you said.
Here are some quotes and links from the seekgod.ca site that really document his "work" and "ministry" in-depth.
quote:
"John Wimber Founder of the Vineyard Movement and worked closely with C. Peter Wagner in Power Evangelism & Church Growth. Eleven of our articles cover various aspects of John Wimber's teachings. As well, we have his testimony tape, and have researched his background and teachings. Utilizing Fuller methodologies, which he helped to develop, Wimber preached "Kingdom Now' restoration and dominionist theology.
Many of his published songs, which have infiltrated all denominations, contain those messages, although most "evangelicals' for example, would not recognize the meanings behind them. He also taught, as did and do the others, the expectation of a 'great end-time harvest and revival'. Wimber traveled on Fuller's behalf for four years in the early 1970's, and successfully introduced Cho's cell church theory in his "Church Growth" seminars. After he left Fuller, he effectively took restoration theology to most of the major denominations of the world. His seminars included Healing (how to heal!), Davidic worship (how to get 'beyond the veil', and into the throne room!), Holiness (perfection in the physical body of the saints - manifested sons theology), signs and wonders, apostolic offices, etc. all of which are part of Manifest Sons of God heresy.
According to Nancy Flint who worked directly with John, and corroborated from other sources,
" John is directly responsible for promoting, equipping, and developing methodologies that resulted in the aberrant "manifestations" called the "Toronto Blessing". The major players in this movement were all personally trained by Wimber, and had directly received their teaching of and entry into (by the laying on of hands) what they call the 'Holy Spirit' directly from Wimber. Pastors who promote and operate in this same "power" force, are the major "players" in the Promise Keepers movement. This thinly veiled political constituency is operating behind the scenes to change our government using the massive numbers of their constituency as leverage to gain entry into the law-making process." [end quote]
http://www.seekgod.ca/fuller2b.htm#wimber
Fuller Seminary Theology and players:
http://www.seekgod.ca/topicorg.htm#fill
More on Wimber and his link with witchcraft [African] and his ensuing progress with his "theology" in the USA. I do not believe that Wimber ever believed in the Deity of Jesus.
http://www.seekgod.ca/bantu.htm
Actually, the seekgod site is an excellent resource for many religious movements, leaders, and doctrines/theoglogies including christianity. A real eye opener
eloidalmanutha
New Member
Perhaps this is not addressing your question directly - but if corporations have "adopted" 40 Days of Purpose, I am assuming they are using it for management and organizational directives, and not because they are looking for a "religious" experience.
quote:
The Purpose Driven Life has now sold more than any other book this year, 7 million so far, and was named “Book of The Year” July, 2003. 40 Days of Purpose is now being done in corporations (Coke Headquarters, Sparrow Records, etc) schools, prisons, NASCAR, LPGA, the Oakland Raiders, and all kinds of places besides churches.
“It will hit 10 million copies sold by the end of December and has been on the New York Times hardback bestsellers longer than any other book this year (40 weeks)” It has now sold over 20 million.
Newsletter- reference www.saddleback.com/peaceplan
Zondervan press release, Sam's Club sold 1 million copies of the book, making it “the first book ever in Sam's Club history to do so” http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/world.12.06.03.warren.htm
“Right now about 5,000 more churches are doing the 40 Day of Purpose campaign, and now the program has been adopted by corporations (like Coke and Walmart) sports teams (like the Oakland Raiders and Green Bay Packers, NASCAR drivers, and the LPGA) schools, civic clubs, and even prisons…. In 2004 we expect over 15,000 more churches to participate.” www.saddleback.com/peaceplan)
http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac24.htm
I'm sorry, that post made me laugh.
Not you, but that corporations are saying they're now doing 40 Days of Purpose.
You see, as I read "Purpose-Driven Church," I started seeing things that I recalled, and I started jotting notes in the margins and at the end of chapters.
In a nutshell, PDC echoed every management and organizational management/behavior theory I learned during my undergraduate degree back in the early 1990's. As I was going through my MBA program, I found that most of those theories haven't changed.
In other words, Warren didn't come up with anything new. He just found scripture to support it, and one or two innovative ways to apply principles that were already widely known.
And I think that's what bugs me most about the book: It took principles and supported them with scripture, rather than took scripture and expounded upon it.
But that's just my opinion, which, as we know, is like armpits: Everyone's got at least 2, and some stink worse than others....
Not you, but that corporations are saying they're now doing 40 Days of Purpose.
You see, as I read "Purpose-Driven Church," I started seeing things that I recalled, and I started jotting notes in the margins and at the end of chapters.
In a nutshell, PDC echoed every management and organizational management/behavior theory I learned during my undergraduate degree back in the early 1990's. As I was going through my MBA program, I found that most of those theories haven't changed.
In other words, Warren didn't come up with anything new. He just found scripture to support it, and one or two innovative ways to apply principles that were already widely known.
And I think that's what bugs me most about the book: It took principles and supported them with scripture, rather than took scripture and expounded upon it.
But that's just my opinion, which, as we know, is like armpits: Everyone's got at least 2, and some stink worse than others....
eloidalmanutha
New Member
As I was digging around, I found this general information on management that applies to 40 days of purpose. It's an interesting article, as it seems to deal with what you are asking from another direction.
quote:
Pastors and church leaders seem as eager to implement the new management strategies as schools, community groups, corporations, government and the United Nations. Across the board, leaders and followers are learning the same new ways of thinking, acting, speaking, listening and serving. The "UN Report of The Commission on Global Governance," titled Our Global Neighborhood, illustrates this worldwide march toward an integrated global management system based on these psycho-social practices:
"By leadership we do not mean only people at the highest national and international levels. We mean enlightenment at every level -- in local and national groups, in parliaments and in the professions.... in small community groups and large national NGOs, in international bodies of every description, in the religious community and among teachers... in the private sector and among the large transnational corporations, and particularly in the media....
"The new generation...[has] a deeper sense of solidarity as people of the planet than any generation before them.... On that rests our hope for our global neighborhood."[7]
Pastors and management gurus such as Rick Warren, John Maxwell, Bob Buford and Peter Drucker are promoting this new organizational model around the world. One of Pastor Warren's Ministry Toolbox Issues commends an influential book by Dr. Peter Senge (the secular/holistic founder of MIT's Society for Organizational Learning) titled The Fifth Discipline. Rick Warren's website calls it "one of the best books of the last 10 years on the subject of organizational transitions.”[8] It has nothing to do with Christianity, but it has everything to do with social transformation and the new way of thinking.
Pastors and church leaders seem as eager to implement the new management strategies as schools, community groups, corporations, government and the United Nations. Across the board, leaders and followers are learning the same new ways of thinking, acting, speaking, listening and serving. The "UN Report of The Commission on Global Governance," titled Our Global Neighborhood, illustrates this worldwide march toward an integrated global management system based on these psycho-social practices:
"By leadership we do not mean only people at the highest national and international levels. We mean enlightenment at every level -- in local and national groups, in parliaments and in the professions.... in small community groups and large national NGOs, in international bodies of every description, in the religious community and among teachers... in the private sector and among the large transnational corporations, and particularly in the media....
"The new generation...[has] a deeper sense of solidarity as people of the planet than any generation before them.... On that rests our hope for our global neighborhood."[7]
Pastors and management gurus such as Rick Warren, John Maxwell, Bob Buford and Peter Drucker are promoting this new organizational model around the world. One of Pastor Warren's Ministry Toolbox Issues commends an influential book by Dr. Peter Senge (the secular/holistic founder of MIT's Society for Organizational Learning) titled The Fifth Discipline. Rick Warren's website calls it "one of the best books of the last 10 years on the subject of organizational transitions.”[8] It has nothing to do with Christianity, but it has everything to do with social transformation and the new way of thinking." [end quote]
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/community-2.htm
Also, on the other post of mine referring to the corporate use of 40 days, I may have been premature on my statement - it may not be a corporate plan as much as it is a few individuals within the corporation taking the course - I think that needs to researched a bit more. I do know that I have heard that 40 days is being used as a corporate "hand book" - working on it
eloidalmanutha
New Member
eloidalmanutha
New Member
the Forbes article that bjonson mentioned:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch_print.html
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch_print.html
All about Grace
New Member
You misunderstood the point. The core of what a church is to be about is demonstrated in Acts -- prayer, evangelism, discipleship, etc. How that plays out in each individual context is not. In other words there is no prescriptive pattern that says, "Meet on Sunday mornings at 11 am and have 30 minutes of music, an offering, a sermon, and a time of invitation." The purposes do not change. How, when, and where they are implemented do.
All about Grace,
As I said, this issue of ecclesiology is one in which different opinions will prevail; I appreciated the way you articulated your view. I understand what you're saying.
The bottom line for me is pretty simple:
I can't even imagine a New Testament gathering on the Lord's Day look anything like a PDL-type seeker service complete with "different venue" styles (Hawaiian, country, etc.) and motivational syle lectures instead of Bible teaching sermons.
And, inasmuch as I'm quite certain the services at my church aren't identical to what happened in that first century (because no one knows for sure), I am persuaded that the focus should be on growing Christians through teaching, prayer, fellowship and the Lord's sacraments of communion and baptism. And, more specifically, I think the preaching should be thorough and clear, with no hint of worldly philosophy or influence.
We just disagree on this point. I appreciate the discussion though.
As I said, this issue of ecclesiology is one in which different opinions will prevail; I appreciated the way you articulated your view. I understand what you're saying.
The bottom line for me is pretty simple:
I can't even imagine a New Testament gathering on the Lord's Day look anything like a PDL-type seeker service complete with "different venue" styles (Hawaiian, country, etc.) and motivational syle lectures instead of Bible teaching sermons.
And, inasmuch as I'm quite certain the services at my church aren't identical to what happened in that first century (because no one knows for sure), I am persuaded that the focus should be on growing Christians through teaching, prayer, fellowship and the Lord's sacraments of communion and baptism. And, more specifically, I think the preaching should be thorough and clear, with no hint of worldly philosophy or influence.
We just disagree on this point. I appreciate the discussion though.
I'am for sure about one thing. If you read the book of Acts through again and again your always going to come away with at least two themes in my opinion. One is prayer the other is boldness.
Today's seeker movement tends to pride itself at times in presenting the Gospel in a non offensive way. It seems that one of the key dynamics to having a seeker friendly church is to accomodate ideas or methods that would make the unbeliever feel at ease. Its like here is the Gospel with the jagged edges rubbed off.
Yes I know Paul was relevant and used issues of the day to present his arguments for the Gospel at times. Yet when it got down to crunch time He never pulled any punches. He never got em loosened up and relaxed before he made his bold declarations of the Gospel.
Funny, Paul was loathed by media and important people of his day. He had to run for his life. He was stoned etc... RW and Joel Osteen , Robert Schuller and Bill Hybels why they almost have movie star status with alot of the press and such.
I guess how the world views true men of God today is a whole lot different than in Paul's day. Either that or their message is a little vanilla when it gets down to when it counts. I don't know. I just see glaring differences in today's movers and shakers of evangelicalism and those in Paul's day and during reformation days. But hey times are a changin I suppose.
Today's seeker movement tends to pride itself at times in presenting the Gospel in a non offensive way. It seems that one of the key dynamics to having a seeker friendly church is to accomodate ideas or methods that would make the unbeliever feel at ease. Its like here is the Gospel with the jagged edges rubbed off.
Yes I know Paul was relevant and used issues of the day to present his arguments for the Gospel at times. Yet when it got down to crunch time He never pulled any punches. He never got em loosened up and relaxed before he made his bold declarations of the Gospel.
Funny, Paul was loathed by media and important people of his day. He had to run for his life. He was stoned etc... RW and Joel Osteen , Robert Schuller and Bill Hybels why they almost have movie star status with alot of the press and such.
I guess how the world views true men of God today is a whole lot different than in Paul's day. Either that or their message is a little vanilla when it gets down to when it counts. I don't know. I just see glaring differences in today's movers and shakers of evangelicalism and those in Paul's day and during reformation days. But hey times are a changin I suppose.
All about Grace
New Member
Different venues? Check out what Paul did in Jewish contexts as opposed to Gentile contexts as opposed to pluralistic contexts such as Athens. There is an adjustment of message presentation, style, and content in each (without changing the central message). Paul became all things to all men in order to reach some.
I can't imagine a NT gathering looking like any church of today. For starters, no building. And the communal mindset of the NT is foreign to any church I know today.
2 quick questions: do you think evangelism occurred in the first century church gatherings? Do you think evangelism is one of the purposes of the church today?
All About Grace,
I am not too interested in pursuing this much further...it just isn't possible to parse this thing out with dogmatic certainty.
But, I'm happy to answer your questions.
You parenthetically said "without changing the central message" as you discussed Paul adjusting for his audience. This is the most foundational problem I have with Warren and those pursuing "seeker-driven" services. I have read and heard dozens of Warren sermons (and had to endure 2 years of plagiarized Warren sermons from my former pastor which he downloaded for $3 and sold for $7) over the years and the central message IS CHANGED. This is absolutely indisputable in my mind. We can look at examples but I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.
The message IS NOT THE SAME. That is my main issue.
As for evangelism and its role - the sermons in Acts (chapter 2 - chapter 17, etc.) seem to be public messages that weren't related to the in-home gathering of the church on the Lord's Day.
I think every sermon can and should be evanglestic inasmuch as Christ is preached through all of scripture and the undiluted truth of God's redemptive plan is made clear. However, there is no way of knowing exactly how the apostle's shared their doctrine in those Lord's Day gatherings. We just don't know.
I think evangelism is a primary purpose of the church today, yes.
I am not too interested in pursuing this much further...it just isn't possible to parse this thing out with dogmatic certainty.
But, I'm happy to answer your questions.
You parenthetically said "without changing the central message" as you discussed Paul adjusting for his audience. This is the most foundational problem I have with Warren and those pursuing "seeker-driven" services. I have read and heard dozens of Warren sermons (and had to endure 2 years of plagiarized Warren sermons from my former pastor which he downloaded for $3 and sold for $7) over the years and the central message IS CHANGED. This is absolutely indisputable in my mind. We can look at examples but I'm not sure it's worth it at this point.
The message IS NOT THE SAME. That is my main issue.
As for evangelism and its role - the sermons in Acts (chapter 2 - chapter 17, etc.) seem to be public messages that weren't related to the in-home gathering of the church on the Lord's Day.
I think every sermon can and should be evanglestic inasmuch as Christ is preached through all of scripture and the undiluted truth of God's redemptive plan is made clear. However, there is no way of knowing exactly how the apostle's shared their doctrine in those Lord's Day gatherings. We just don't know.
I think evangelism is a primary purpose of the church today, yes.
All about Grace
New Member
It has never been shown that RW does not believe and teach that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven or that a person can come to Christ without faith and repentance. To say otherwise is simply deceptive. Are you suggesting RW teaches something other than this gospel?
If this is the case, then your primary problem becomes how and when evangelism takes place. And again Scripture is silent on this issue, so there is no genuine argument against a church that chooses to use seeker services to fulfill this purpose.
All about Grace
New Member
Also just out of curiosity, do you agree or disagree with my previous remarks regarding discipleship?
All about Grace said:
"And again Scripture is silent on this issue, so there is no genuine argument against a church that chooses to use seeker services to fulfill this purpose."
Yes, there are many, many genuine and compelling arguments against church services that have been influenced by and cater to "seekers". Again, this has been discussed on various forums in depth. If you want to discuss, let's open a new thread.
"And again Scripture is silent on this issue, so there is no genuine argument against a church that chooses to use seeker services to fulfill this purpose."
Yes, there are many, many genuine and compelling arguments against church services that have been influenced by and cater to "seekers". Again, this has been discussed on various forums in depth. If you want to discuss, let's open a new thread.
All about Grace
New Member
No need. I have read almost every transcipt or watched live most of the venues where Warren has appeared. I have never heard him say anything contrary to salvation by faith alone.