Rick Warren & "Resisters", Those Believers Who Refuse To Change

blammo, don't waste your time. His screen name speaks volumes. He will try to beat you down with his intellect. Everything he said I didn't answer, I did. All one has to do is go back and see. I don't waste my time with those who have a hard time getting their t-shirts over their heads anymore.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I did go back and look before my last post...... I agree you answered.

I think "try" is the key word in the underlined statement above. I thank God for this verse:

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

I'll need that uh'cause teacher dint learnt me real good back in the day.

 

I have a question:

Was Michael Servetus a "resister"? Maybe John Calvin thought so. I don't think Rick Warren has advocated Calvin's form of dealing with "resisters".

 

I would really like to see someone respond to lagardo's comments...someone who has experience in this church model.

 

What kind of response are you looking for? There are plenty of examples where people who find Warren's goals and sloppy handling of scripture repulsive, and say so. And there are examples of those people being marginalized in the church because they're standing for sound doctrine.

I've experienced this church model and it stinks. It was perfect for the church where I experienced it, because it was already a chick church (it existed to attract and please women who just want to get emotional over the latest praise and worship songs).

But when I raised issues of sound doctrine and the blatant sinful behavior of the church members, they couldn't get rid of me fast enough.

I know you're going to assume this was about Calvinism, but it wasn't. Sure we discussed that, too, but one of the biggest sticking points was the fact that the church members were leading openly sinful lives and nobody said or did anything about it. I challenged the pastor to preach a sermon about how it really matters what you do when you leave church. You can sing "in all I do, I honor you" day and night and cry like a baby while singing it, but if you go home and cheat on your spouse, all that singing amounts to absolutely zip when it comes to true worship. He declined and continued to preach only "feel-good" sermons, because that's what drew people in.

Here is some sound doctrine for you:

Well, a portion of the congregation (including my ex-wife) were walking in darkness. Yet the pastor and elders, who knew what was going on, did absolutely nothing about it because these people who sinned openly and without any sense of remorse were so-called long-term "respected" members of the church. They would have lost a lot of members if they had disciplined or rejected these people.

That was their focus - holding onto the membership and growing the church. They had a formula that was working - PDL. So to heck with doctrine or whether or not people were practicing sin continually. As long as they were showing up and singing songs, bringing new people in, holding PDL bible studies, that was fine with them.

You will know them by their fruits.

 

What about the log in your eye? You seemed to have been the "sin police" of that church...no wonder they wanted you gone. What you did in your post is slander a church and gossip about the members to support your disdain for the PDC model. Great job!

 

Pretty much the entire PDL message! Everything you highlighted...

 

Well, I guess it should not be too surprising after nearly 200 posts that this thread isn't really discussing Rick Warren and that article anymore.

Here's a link to Rick Warren's article:

http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What to do when your church hits a plateau?"

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I read it and did not find it to be that offensive nor was it nonfundamentalistic. he is merely discussing issues when a church is close-minded to issues in it and unwilling to make the necessary changes.

He said,
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
There are 3 things he said he believed a church needed to do to make changes when it is no longer growing spiritually:
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, as we’ve just discussed, understand that it will take time.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Second, you love everybody, but you move with the movers.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Third, be prepared for conflict.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What's wrong with that? Is it biblical to stick to something merely based on tradition? [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Shouldn't the Bible be the basis for determining what to do?

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]FA
[/FONT]

 

Hehe... I love it! "Chick Church", I've got a new term.

I wonder what the "contemporary" folks call the places that haven't "progressed"? "Hymn Houses"?

I know the more "animated" churches around here (Pentecostal's, one step shy of snake handling) used to call the Baptists around here the "Frozen Chosen", but that was before the Warren Reformation that shamed many of the churches out of those old Hymns.

What is funny and ties back into the "Chick Church" thing you mentioned, was that I had visited the most rural of the Pentecostal churches in my area when I was younger on a regular basis (friends.) I always thought that it was the only time those women and girls could have an emotional outlet as they all seemed so oppressed to me (no haircuts, no jewelery, no pants, no say.) Come Sunday night they'd all be rolling around at the foot of the stage when the band would play as if they were groupies at a rock concert... but I digress.

 

I personally didn't see it as "sin police", I would call that accountability. Now days it seems that people are so afraid to offend people (especially established/prominent members and "seekers") that no one really confronts people.

For example, if I were doing something immoral (even openly or in secret) that had come to the attention to a fellow member of my congregation, I would probably be angry at first if they confronted me (out of shame) *but* if I was put under conviction and corrected myself, I would later owe that person a debt of gratitude.

But, I'm one of those folks that expects a sermon to come with conviction as opposed these touchy-feely "pep talks" now day that will go out of their way not to offend anyone.

Tim

 

It is perfectly Biblical to discipline church members for blatant and unrepentant sinful behavior. This Biblical truth should not only be acted upon, but preached along with every other Biblical truth. To ask the pastor to do his job isn't being sin police.

Slander, by the way, is an attempt to defame. The only way I can defame this church or its leaders, or gossip about its members is to tell you who they are. I purposely did not mention names for this very reason. I didn't even mention the name of my ex-wife. If you know who she is, it's probably because she slept with you. Otherwise, I can't imagine how you'd know.

 

I didn't see the biblical model of church discipline in his post. I saw him going directly to leadership instead of confronting the people involved with the model the Bible gives. If the church didn't respond after the proper steps were taken, then personal leadership is lacking in the church, not the model the church uses (PDC).

 

So what's this argument about again? Is it about the book, Purpose Driven Life? The church model of Purpose Driven Church? Or Rick Warren's opions on how to deal with members that don't want to change?

And what in the world is "seeker-PDL?" I'm assuming you are generalizing seeker-oriented (either driven or sensitive) church models with purpose driven church models (which can be seeker-driven or seeker sensitive), but what does that have to do with the book, "Purpose Driven Life?"

Seems like a lot of terms are being tossed around now with no clear understanding of what they mean. I have never heard of a seeker-PDL model, which leads me to wonder if some of the criticism being tossed about is done so without a clear understanding of what is being discussed?

First of all, Purpose Driven Life is not about how a church ought to function. If you want Rick Warren's opinion on that you would need to read a very different book called, "Purpose Driven Church." Similar titles, very different books.

Also understand that there is a wide, wide, WIDE spectrum of contemporary churches. I find the term "model" to be laughable, because as I have stated previously, I've never seen a church that could truly model another. I have been to churches that claim to be Willow Creek Model churches but I've also been to Willow Creek and there was a huge difference. I've also been to hundreds of tradional SBC churches and found them to be different. Even been to some IFB churches...yup, different.

If we must talk in terms of models, there is still a pretty big difference between Purpse Driven, seeker sensitive, seeker driven, etc. Just because the church uses worship music written more recently does not mean it is necessaily Purpose Driven. The main idea behind the Purpose Driven model is not contemporary worship. Its an element, but not the main idea. The Purpose Driven model is more about why a church does what it does and programming to meet various purposes. Putting everything in its place so to speak. There is a purpose driven aspect in the Epistles of Paul. They are written to certain audeinces and thus, differ accordingly, no?

I have been to a purpose driven church that used traditional worship.

The term seeker gets tossed around a bit. But there is a wide spectrum of approaches to a seeker service. Some churches are seeker-sensitive, meaning they are aware that lost people who are interested in hearing about Jesus are in the congregation and do not want anything non-essential to stand in the way. Have you set something up for visitors? Congradulations, you were being seeker-sensitive. There ae others that set up services specifically for lost people who are interested in hearing about Jesus (interested in sitting in church, anyway). These are seeker-driven services.

I'm sure we can have reasonable discussions here, but arguments based on naming falacies won't go any further then "oh huh!"

 

1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

While it is conceivable that a church member might rebuke someone before all, it isn't the sort of thing church members do. This is also written to Timothy, who was a leader, and it was among instructions for leadership.

2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Again, I don't preach the word in church. We can argue about different church models, and whether or not the current model correctly mirrors the NT model, but that's how it works in most churches today.

Furthermore, I challenged the pastor to do exactly what 2 Tim 4:2-3 says. Preach a sermon about how it's possible to come to church, sing the praise and worship songs, and even teach bible study or sunday school, and still be walking in darkness if you sin willfully without remorse on a continual basis. He refused, even though 2 Tim 4:2-3 charges him with that very task. He was more interested in appealing to their lusts. He was very good at that.

As an aside, I was relatively new at this church. People were walking in darkness in that church for a long time before I got there. I did confront one person. She told me others knew what she was doing for years. She didn't care enough to change anything, and neither did the people who knew, including the pastor.

Now, let me make one thing very clear. None of this happened BECAUSE this church adopted the PDL. But this church slipped right into PDL easily BECAUSE it was already more interested in feel-good theology, getting everyone on board with goals of growth, and explicitly avoiding dealing with sensitive issues like sound doctrine or well-known sinful behavior in the membership.

So it comes as no surprise that when I corrected some of Rick Warren's abuse of scripture, I got heat for it. Scriptural integrity was not the priority. Getting people on board was the priority.

 

Alright, so now you've moved on to the argument of "I've been on here longer than you" or even better, "I don't have the time to explain my point to you."

Both are ways some choose to answer in a debate but niether adds anything to the discussion.

The intent of my post was not to side with either you or webdog (whom I have never met, but hey, a friend is always nice...so I guess that's fine if you want to call him my friend.), but rather to try to clarify where this discussion was. Its all over the map, which hardly seems productive.

 

Clarification for you:

1. Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life/Church uses (mis)translations and (mis)interpretations of the Bible to justify its man-centered approach to drawing in people and creating church growth. I put (mis) in parens because not every translation he uses is bad, and not every interpretation he uses is wrong. But many of the quotes he uses in his book and tape are mistranslations that he chose because they support his point, not because that's what the verses really say. And he mistranslates some passages in order to support his points, too. To put it bluntly, he has an agenda, and he seems to have no problem abusing the Bible to push it.

2. His agenda, being man-centered, is dangerous just because it is man-centered.

3. There are those who resist his agenda, and he advocates marginalizing them and getting rid of them. Some of us on this board believe the resisters include those who think a man-centered approach to church building is wrong, and also include those who believe that he is not teaching sound doctrine. I count myself among them. Therefore we often consider his approach to handling resisters one of "don't let the truth get in the way of my plan to build a world wide deeds-based revolution".

4. There are those who believe that Rick Warren's approach is biblical and sound. They disagree with the first three points above.

That's what this thread has been about.

 

Regardless of what is behind the movement, I have to say that *this one thing* scares me the most. The comments about waiting for members to die off and such really didn't set well with me at all.

While I really don't have the energy to debate this, I must say I am glad that by seeing the debate I now know I am not alone, and that the warning flags have gone up in other's minds too.

I think it will make me more willing to discuss my feelings of uneasiness to others around me. Maybe they too are questioning inside also, but are afraid to ask those questions vocally. Or, maybe they've already became PoDC People and I'll just be chalked up as another resister.