Schuller's Place: To Go or Not?

Hi Everybody,

As someone who has been researching contemporary Christianity for several years this topic is interesting discussion and an example of what is only the beginning of what will become, I believe, one of the most contested, venomous, and divisive issues in the history of the church. That is because, like several dozen other 'movements' within and without orthodox Christianity, it is so well developed and moving at such a rapid pace that confrontation with disciples of Christ who hold fast the Word of God and its doctrinal truths is, I regret to say, unavoidable.

Within organized Christianity itself, it is not unreasonable to say the largest subset has either "fallen away" from Biblical truth or is well into the process. Well balanced, healthy churches are disappearing in America and thousands more are in great danger of fatal disease, IMHO. Dedicated, Bible-believing Christians in England, who would feel at home with almost all the people on this board, have nowhere to attend church at all, even in many populated areas.

The church growth movement, discussed in this thread (it cannot be divorced from Robert Schuller), is one of the more subtle deceptions in church history, IMHO. It's very sensitive and touchy because, like other deceptive movements, there are true Christians involved who aren't aware of the inherent dangers.

One example: I have spent perhaps hundreds of hours researching the purpose-driven subset of this movement because it has affected people all around me, solid Christians. And I can tell you that, though there are good things about it, and though it appears harmless on the surface, once you dig deep into it what you see is, regretfully, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is little or no talk about our hopelessness, forsaking all we have, repentance, taking up our cross to follow Him, the eternal consequences of sin or the unimaginable horror of Gehenna that Jesus talked so much about (more than He talked about love, in fact). Simply put, inside the trojan horse of an inoffensive, easy-believism gospel, and covered within a peritoneum of high tech marketing and management systems, I found the two-headed monster of self-fulfillment and self-esteem. And the reason for purpose-driven's mind boggling 'growth' and popularity.

Sound sensational? These are broad, bold, controversial statements, I know. That is unusual for me, and though this doesn't seem like the time or place, I am impressed to post this and wonder if there are any out there who agree with this view or, perhaps, are not surprised or shocked at the possibilities implied here? I honestly don't believe any Christian, to whom "rightly dividing the Word of truth" is important, will be able to escape having to discern this issue. May I assure everyone I mean no offense, have no desire to fight, or even debate, beyond what dialogue is useful to honest discussion and to discerning the truth.

I look forward to your input.

 

Yes, Schuller is obviously not Christian. And I have no problem with church growth per se, either, we all want the expansion of the Kingdom. It gets deep, but there is a definite New Age stone in the foundation of the CGM, with its inevitable link to the occult. Not surprising, since Schuller mentored Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, and there are many more connections.

As part of my personal search for Biblical Truth, as well as a healthy church home, I have looked into a dozen or so of the major false teachings or errors within the "recognized" Christian church, in addition to the CGM, and many others, and I'm very concerned about them all. No doubt we've engaged some of the same ones. As I'm sure you know, they are all moving full steam ahead. I don't think one can overstate the magnitude of it all. To me, the thing that distinguishes the CGM, is its 'top of the line' subtlety, capable of deceiving even "the very elect", IMHO.

BTW, one of the rewards of all this has been 'running into' people like Norman Geisler. His Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics is a mainstay in my library.

 

Iveyleaguer,

You cannot engage in a meaningful dialogue about this subject matter when you bring to the table such outlandish claims. If you want to start with some basic issues, we can progress from there but I rarely take time to discuss this issue with one who comes to the ring throwing such wild punches.

 

Iveyleaguer may be painting with a bit of a broad brush and his generalizations may be unsettling, but I agree with the theme of his argument. To say that "[d]edicated, Bible-believing Christians in England, who would feel at home with almost all the people on this board, have nowhere to attend church at all, even in many populated areas" is a bit of an over-statement, because there are some. From reports I've received, however, they are few and far between.

Schuller's gospel is not the gospel of the Scriptures. It is a different gospel, one which deceives its followers into thinking that they're worst problem is poor self-esteem. Felt-needs preaching is an outgrowth of Schuller's scheme, and it is powerfully attractive. Folks here what they want, leave feeling good and determined to do better, and gladly tell others about what has given them a new outlook on life. The preaching of law and gospel, repentance and faith, being happy in God and finding one's ultimate satisfaction in Him is rarely heard.

Bill

 

Would I speak at Schuler's? I hope that I preach the truth so clearly that he would NEVER invite me to speak!

Would I attend? Out of curiosity I might attend, but I would not invite a layperson to attend this meeting with me. Truthfully, I don't think there would be much at this conference that is worthwhile and I am confident that I would hear heresy. I would also wear a set of "Groucho Marx" glasses so that no one on the BB who attends would recognize me. (Look for me at the conference, I'm the guy wearing the "Groucho Marx" glasses).

 

I started a thread on this topic in the pastoral ministries forum. See my thoughts there.

 

That's way over the top. One can disagree with the man and his methods, but the man is most definitely a Christian.

 

That's way over the top. One can disagree with the man and his methods, but the man is most definitely a Christian.</font>[/QUOTE]From Schuller's book Self Esteem: The New Reformation (sorry I don't have the page #):

"once a person believes he is an 'unworthy sinner', it is doubtful if he can really honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Jesus Christ."

 

Yeah, I left out the second 'almost'. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, by "in many populated areas" I didn't mean London or Liverpool, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's tough there.

 

Context, context, context. The man's written some 30 books, yet the quote comes from a book that was published in the early 70's. I've heard the man speak personally, as recently as two Sundays ago. I've heard his testimony. I've heard the man give numerous messages that are straight from the Gospel. In fact, at the service two Sundays ago, he directly said that we're all sinners, and that only Jesus Christ can pay the price for our sins.

What we're dealing with in this scenario is Billy Graham all over again. Billy Graham's naysayers are able to out pages and pages of quotes that he's said that, on their own, compromise scripture. However, the bulk of what Graham says is totally scripture.

Now, Schuller is no Billy Graham, and his methodology is not for me. However, they likely work for other people, and I am not one to judge that. My own cousin was saved after attending Schuller's church. I know several people who were over the years, and none of these people's doctrinal views on scripture are remotely compromising.

But that is not the point I was addressing. I was responding to the post that says Schuller is not a Christian. That's not only a false statement, it's judging a person's salvation.

 

Context, context, context. The man's written some 30 books, yet the quote comes from a book that was published in the early 70's.</font>[/QUOTE]Out of context with what? Certainly not his writings nor his philosophy.

I would guess that 90+ % of everything false teachers say is true.

God uses all sorts of circumstances to save people. It happens all the time and thank God for it. God used Jimmy Swaggart to reach me. I'm thankful for your cousin and all the others. I look forward to meeting them someday.

I didn't say he was not "a" Christian, as if I were looking into his heart and judging him. Now you've taken my words out of context. I said "Schuller is not Christian", meaning his teachings, and agreeing with Marcia about his "new thought principles", etc., etc.. The posts are only 1 page back, people can read for themselves. His teaching is not Christian, he preaches a different gospel - I stand by that.

I understand why you might want to defend Schuller but, as far as I'm concerned, his teaching speaks for itself. I have no interest in debating it. God bless you.

 

Then praise the 90% as well. That is certainly what I do when it comes to Jerry Falwell and D James Kennedy. Thay've both said things that I disagree with scripturally. I still praise them when they're right on.

In the same light, Jimmy Swaggart has done and said a lot for the Gospel, and, and he's been praised for that, and rightly so, despite the man's dirty laundry.

Yet, as you said, 90% is likely correct. Therefore, you should more accurately say that while you find 10% of his teachings not Christian, 90% of his teachings are.

Clearly, I misunderstood you, but perhaps you could have worded it better.

Because I think he gets a bad rap on this board, as do folks like Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and Billy Graham. People like to find the one "oops" and disregard the other 10 "atta boy"'s. Like I said, Schuller's not my cup of tea. But he's an effective preacher, and he's bringing people to the Lord, even though his messages are, imo, often incomplete in contrast to scripture as a whole. As I said, sometimes they're not. Many times his messages have been right on, and it's unfortunate that he's not credited with that.

It's rather sad that amny of the folks on this board who poke holes in folks like Kennedy, Schuller, Graham, Hybels, Warren, etc, will accept blindly anything that comes from charlatains like Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh. Whassupwiddat???

And you as well, my friend.

 

Now you have made a category mistake. Falwell and Kennedy are not false teachers.

I stand on my posts.

 

Neither is Schuller, imo. Short on teaching, yes. False teaching, no. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that. Falwell and Kennedy have been called false teachers by others.

But the topic of the OP is not that at all. The OP asks if it is appropriate to attend a leadership conference at the Crystal Cathedral. I reiterate what I said earlier:

Some on this board have attended in the past. My own pastor has attended in the past. I know two local pastors, one of them IFB, who will be attending this time. The comments of those who have attended have been generally positive.

If you a person wants to go, then go. If they don't want to, then don't. If someone you know is going, but you wouldn't attend, let them go in peace.