Schuller's Place: To Go or Not?

Why should I listen to you? You are not perfect.
</font>[/QUOTE]What is that statement supposed to mean?

Bill

 

What is that statement supposed to mean?

Bill [/QB][/QUOTE]

The point being that you will never find a perfect church or speaker. So why do you listen to anyone? Do you listen because they agree with you or because they will challenge you?

 

Schuller I don't like. But what about the others?

 

I suspect that several SBC pastors on the Baptist Board, myself included, have little, if any at all, use for the church growth conferences put on by the SBC and the state Baptist conventions. They are vivid examples of the end justifying the means. You can numerically grow any church or religious group, regardless of theology, using their methodology. It helps explain why the SBC has over 16 million members and fewer than a third in attendance on any given Sunday morning. The truly converted, unless providentially hindered, will be in worship. One of the greatest mission fields in America is the membership roll of the average Baptist church

Bill

 

Schuller I don't like. But what about the others?

However Schuller got my family at least interested and listening to him on TV. They do not listen to him anymore. All of them are believers and dynamic growing Christians. They are now making disciples even after being Christians just a few years. So I am not sure how much I could discount him. I think many people later see past his gospel anyway.

 

What is that statement supposed to mean?

Bill </font>[/QUOTE]The point being that you will never find a perfect church or speaker. So why do you listen to anyone? Do you listen because they agree with you or because they will challenge you? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I see, but isn't there a difference between a Christian leader with whom you disagree and a purported Christian leader who teaches heresy? Schuller has denied that Jesus died on the cross taking the wrath of God due to sinners. His gospel is one of self-esteem. He teaches that sincere followers of other religions will be accepted by God. It's not a matter of Schuller's being perfect or not---it's a matter of placing oneself under the teaching of a heretic.

Bill

 

I would not attend nor speak (if I were speaker material ). My reasoning is that to do so would appear to give MY endorsement to Robert Schuler's 'I'm okay, you're okay' christian mentality. (Little 'c' intended)

Diane

 

You might be right. But I would disagree.

That is like trying to push and pull and tug the religious to church. They have already had enough. That was me when I was 16 until I met a real believer who cared enough to disciple me and I didn't know it until later. He just became my friend and we did things together. Later He took me witnessing and we had Bible study together. We prayed together and read the Bible together.

People are loking for real believers who care enough to help them grow without any strings attached. I am never worried about getting a person to church. They automatically come when they are growing.

Those on the SBC rolls came and left for a reason. Some have even died and nobody knows the person or anything about them.

Too many SBC churches want good Baptists and not disciples. Jesus wants radical Christians.

 

You might be right. But I would disagree.

That is like trying to push and pull and tug the religious to church. They have already had enough. That was me when I was 16 until I met a real believer who cared enough to disciple me and I didn't know it until later. He just became my friend and we did things together. Later He took me witnessing and we had Bible study together. We prayed together and read the Bible together.

People are loking for real believers who care enough to help them grow without any strings attached. I am never worried about getting a person to church. They automatically come when they are growing.

Those on the SBC rolls came and left for a reason. Some have even died and nobody knows the person or anything about them.

Too many SBC churches want good Baptists and not disciples. Jesus wants radical Christians. </font>[/QUOTE]Your last statement supports my point. While I would disagree with your terminology, the fact of the matter is that attending worship is the easiest thing a Christian does. If a professing Christian does not show up for worship, an act he's commanded to do (Hebrews 10:24-25), how will he stand up for Christ in the more difficult situations and in the face of unnerving temptations. I attended church for years as a lost person!

People drop out of church for a variety of reasons. Pastors may preach contentless sermons, folks may get tired of seeing the religiously unregenerate fighting for power in churches, etc. Having been in the ministry for over 25 years, my great concern is that so many professing Christians do not know the Lord. When we find someone really acting like a Christian, we think it's radical discipleship, when in reality it is simply the way a believer should live.

BTW, a good Baptist will be a good Christian (but I think I know what you mean)!

 

No one is suggesting the two should be completely disjoined, but neither should methodology be held in equal regard as theology. Methods CHANGE. Fundamental theology does not. As long as the bottom line is the bottom line, methods will rightfully differ. Besides, if you are involved with a church that has pews, air conditioning, children's programming, a youth program, etc, then you can't justify your claims.

 

No one is suggesting the two should be completely disjoined, but neither should methodology be held in equal regard as theology. Methods CHANGE. Fundamental theology does not. As long as the bottom line is the bottom line, methods will rightfully differ. Besides, if you are involved with a church that has pews, air conditioning, children's programming, a youth program, etc, then you can't justify your claims. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure I can justify my claims, biblically, I might add. Pews allow folks to hear the Word preached and taught (though we use chairs, actually). Air conditioning merely keeps people from being distracted by the heat so they can listen to the Word. It is a non-issue. If you mean Bible studies for children and youth, we are instructed to teach children and youth. If by programming you mean entertainment to keep kids interested in church, I agree with you.

Methodologies do change, but they must continue to be consistent with theology. BTW, it's been my experience that theology is more often "caught" that "taught." If one's methodology contradicts one's theology, the methodology will often become one's theology.

Let me make my case by being demonstrably controversial for conservatives. All sorts of accusations will fly over what I'm about to write, and I won't be able to respond until tomorrow, at best.

Ready? Here goes. . . .

Does your church have an "altar call"? Of course, one may answer, how will people be able to make decisions for Christ without one? Well, how did they do come to Christ before our Methodist friends started the mechanism, innocently enough, around 1800, and Charles G. Finney popularized it in his "revivals"? Now, in most conservative Baptist churches, a service that does not end with an altar call is characterized as an unconcern for the lost. I know, I used to make the same charge and now I have the same charge made against me. For many, the altar call for salvation has become a sacrament---it's how people are saved. Methodology has become theology.

Let me recommend essential reading for those who care about the truth of the relationship between theology and methodology: Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism, available at http://www.cvbbs.com/inventory.php?target=indiv&bookid=2391 .

Now, bombs away!

Bill

 

This proves my point. Not yours.

At the end you say, Methodology has become theology. That is my point!!!

Methodology and Theology are distinct.

And no we do not have altar calls.

 

This proves my point. Not yours.

At the end you say, Methodology has become theology. That is my point!!!

Methodology and Theology are distinct.

And no we do not have altar calls. </font>[/QUOTE]All about Grace,

My dear friend, I think we are talking past each other. At least we're not understanding each other, so let's give it one last try and then let this thread die a natural and well-deserved death.

You say that I make your point when I show that methodology can become theology and then you say that methodology and theology are distinct. Now, either you're toying with me, or Jacques Derrida was right about words having no meaning! My point is that methodology and theology are so interrelated that they can become the same. They are not distinct (separate and unrelated).

Come on over to upstate SC sometime and I'll take you out for lunch and we'll discuss this in detail. After all, we both would claim it's "all about grace." BTW, I'm a native Georgian and remain a Bulldog fan.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Where do you stand on the point that D.L. Moody the eveangelist spoke in the Mormon tabernacle?

If given an opportunity I wouild speak and give the gospel in plain terms. I probably would not get invited back but they would know where I stood. After all Jesus preached in the synagogues and some didn't like him very well either.

 

okay.. in answer to your original post Marcia...

I would not attend, partially due to those very loving churches that God has blessed without their Pastors ever attending such 'training' ONe in particular that I am thinking of.. some of you will have to forgive me.. did not even attend a seminary.. and God has used him to build a wonderful church.
So no. I would not attend...
Now, if I was invited to speak.. I would do so. I think Bro Jerry said it best when he said he'd preach anywhere once.. they might not ask him back unless they changed their doctrines but he'd go if they would let him speak...

mark
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

My point is that an error has been made when methodology becomes equal to theology (such as your example of the altar call above). Your earlier contention is that theology and methodology are closely tied and my response is that they are more unrelated than related. My theology prevents my methodology from distorting the gospel, but my methodology is far from equal to my theology. The problem I see in many traditional fundy churches is that methodological issues have been elevated to equal status as theological issues (such as the altar call illustration).

Now that is a lot of -ology.

My tenure in GA is short-lived. I have only been here since Sept and will move West in January. Long story.

 

I would not attend or speak. I believe Robert Schuller is an out right apostate. Real Christians should not rub shoulders except on a one on one basis where the truth can be given to him. I say apostate because I believe he knows the truth but prefers the flash and pizazz of his so called ministry.

Alter calls in my opinion are a matter of Church polity. I think people get saved through their use but have seen people saved without them as well. It all depends how your pastor is led. Do we have yellow or orange curtins? Same difference.

 

Well, are you goin' to learn or goin' to preach?? Paul went to preach, not learn. Instead of playin' Bat-A-Schuller, let me say that you might get some value out of the conference but generally I think I would skedaddle. I've met the man twice and he chills me (as in negatively).