What is the Purpose Driven Life?

Since you quoted my post, I presume you are addressing this to me. The so-called childishness that you choose to ignore was ridicule and sarcasm. These are effective tools for bringing down the proud and arrogant. That was exactly my impression of you in your earlier posts and in your dealings with ShannonL. There are plenty of other guys on this board with doctorates who don’t flaunt and use them to advantage in argumentation. I just don’t care about your degrees. There are a lot of flops out there with doctorates and some of them may even be my students. Show me your knowledge and intellect by what you write, not by flaunting your degrees. To do so makes one a pompous ass. Let me deduce that you are a thinker, a gentleman and a scholar by how you handle yourself in debate.

I’ve read your later posts and you seemed to have changed your attitude. You’re much more humble—even apologetic and rueful. There seems to be a new understanding between you and ShannonL. So, I’ll bow out.

BTW, I read your answers to my points and they amount to repartee. You haven’t said anything of import. I know, I know. You have several avenues open to you now:
1. You can say that I’m ducking out because I lost the argument and have no answers. No, it’s just that I have no desire to engage in wordplay. I want to debate substantive issues.
2. You can accuse me of not being serious.
3. You can accuse me of ad hominem attacks.
4. You can walk away like me.

I’m weary and bored of the whole issue. One can never convince a man’s devotees of his precarious path. I cannot endorse or support RW. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

I was wrong that you had no material to argue. You’ve hit upon a core one. Methods are not neutral as you seem to intimate. Methodology is an issue. Methods are much more important than most folks will admit today. As a general rule, methods tend to be results oriented. Or at least, they seem to be driven and justified by visible results. The attitude is: If it produces results, use it.

Theology must dictate methods. For example, Reformed Baptists are generally opposed to the altar call of many SBC evangelists and pastors. This is a choice of method based on theology. Not all methods are compatible with one’s theology. On the other hand, there may be a plurality of methods compatible with your theology but you cannot say there is no connection between theology and methods. To cite an extreme case, Moses David, founder of The Way, sent his little hippie girls out in the 1970’s to have sex with prospective converts to The Way. Surely you would not approve of evangelizing with sexual methods.

Your serious thoughts, please.

 

Kind of like you do huh?

So you make accusations. You are asked to provide proof to substantiate your accusations and then you decide to "bow out"? What are we supposed to conclude from that? I would think at a minimum you would apologize for misrepresenting RW.

I could care less what you think about me. You don't know me. As I have said many times, BB is strictly entertainment for me. At the end of the day, I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me here.

Absolutely not. But there is something wrong with making unfounded accusations against someone and then walking away when you are asked to support your claims.

I would simply suggest that one's theology does have an influence upon one's methodology (eg, I do not employ strippers to promote events b/c of what I believe). Obviously methods are controlled by one's theology.

At the same time I believe many churches are making the huge mistake of equating methods with theology. Take your example ... many churches would condemn those who choose not to use an altar call as compromising the gospel. Obviously the accuser in this instance has made the mistake of giving a method equal weight as a belief. Or take the opposite approach. Someone in Reformed circles might condemn a less Calvinistic approach and disparage someone for utilizing an altar call. Same mistake - opposite perspective.

Point? Is it right to use an altar call? Is it wrong to use an altar call? Answer -- yes. An altar call is a method. It makes no difference whether you choose to utilize it or not. Now your theology may help you decide to use or not to use it, but the theology behind the decision and the method itself are not equal.

I would agree that a large determining factor in employing methods has to do with results. I am not an opponent of results. I believe the more unbelievers I can get in our seats to hear the gospel the better. Therefore I am going to utilize methods that CONNECT to my hearer. I am going to use anything and everything that does not compromise the message to get people to hear the message.

Every church utilizes methods. The only real question then becomes: do our methods help make the gospel clearer? Are they effective in communicating the gospel in a way the hearer will understand the message.

Obviously I am working with the presupposition that God the Holy Spirit is at work as well. I do not believe a single person will come to faith in Christ outside of the work of the Spirit, yet ironically I have also discovered that the more effectively we share the gospel, the more people come to faith in Christ.

For that reason, it is my responsibility to employ whatever means is possible (again within reason here) to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

Kind of like you do huh?
</font>[/QUOTE]Since you are not addressing the point but rather you are casting a dispersion at me, I would say this is ad hominem. Have you ever noticed how people do this when they don’t have a good answer? Shame on you. This is not worthy of someone with intellectual pretensions.

So you make accusations. You are asked to provide proof to substantiate your accusations and then you decide to "bow out"? What are we supposed to conclude from that? I would think at a minimum you would apologize for misrepresenting RW.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, this is no attack on your person or character or motives. It is an attack on your opinions and puny answers. Since this is supposedly a forum for debate, you have no reason to whine and take personal insult. Furthermore, you are taking an imagined offense at something entirely innocuous but you did take a personal jab at me in the beginning of this post. You must live by the standards that you seek to impose on others.

There you go again, making this thing personal. If it means nothing to you, then why are you being so defensive? Are you trying to persuade me and the readers or yourself? The connotation is that you are concerned about what the folks here think. Your statement is not convincing. You don’t need to tell us this. Remember, I said that you will reveal yourself in what you post. As I said previously, I’m more concerned about debating ideas with people who are supposedly my peers in education and intellect. This can be a serious exercise for me but I have been somewhat disappointed on this thread thus far.

Absolutely not. But there is something wrong with making unfounded accusations against someone and then walking away when you are asked to support your claims.
</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to forget what my claims were. I merely said that ShannonL had reasons and reasoning which you had denied. I proceeded to summarize and list a number of his reasons. He listed such things as association with Schuller, taking Scripture out of context, etc. It was established that RW has spoken on more than one occasion at Schuller’s programs. Can you deny this? IHMO, this violates the Biblical doctrine of separation from heretics. Yes, I do classify Schuller as a heretic.

Furthermore, RW has taken Scripture out of context to support his forty-day motif. How can an educated, intelligent theologian deny this if he knows anything about RW, PDL and Scripture? You have chosen to ignore the claims and reasons meanwhile chanting your mantra: “But there is something wrong with making unfounded accusations against someone and then walking away when you are asked to support your claims.” You may not agree with our position but you cannot truthfully say that we have not given reasons with observable evidence in support.

The aforementioned are just two examples of several that I could have used. Why should I work my fingers to the bone writing things that you ignore or brush aside? You have no argument, no case. Now deal with the issues instead of coming back with inanities.

I would simply suggest that one's theology does have an influence upon one's methodology (eg, I do not employ strippers to promote events b/c of what I believe). Obviously methods are controlled by one's theology. (emphasis not in original)

At the same time I believe many churches are making the huge mistake of equating methods with theology. Take your example ... many churches would condemn those who choose not to use an altar call as compromising the gospel. Obviously the accuser in this instance has made the mistake of giving a method equal weight as a belief. Or take the opposite approach. Someone in Reformed circles might condemn a less Calvinistic approach and disparage someone for utilizing an altar call. Same mistake - opposite perspective.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, you can’t have it both ways. Either theology determines methods or it does not. If theology dictates methods, it follows that I can theologically criticize your methodology if our theologies differ. In other words, if I can disagree and debate your theology then it is just as legitimate for me to disagree with your methodology. I don’t accept the old theological pabulum that methods don’t matter. They do.

Not so. Your theology determines whether you should use an altar call or not. If you’re a Calvinist believing in limited atonement and irresistible grace then you don’t give an altar call. It is repugnant to your theology.

This is a whole new question. According to I Corinthians 3:6, results are God’s doing. The problem is that we try to go beyond what God expects of us and produce the results. Our duty is to obedient and faithful. It appears that we have absorbed a good bit of business acumen into our theology. I question the valid of these so-called results. Many times, churches reporting thousands of conversions and baptisms grow only by a few hundred at best. The great results just seem to vaporize.

Problem not. Many of the Madison Avenue techniques are better suited to selling soap than bringing souls to Christ. Is the conversion genuine? Is there a changed life? Like the Pharisees, a false conversion experience may make the person seven times more the child of Hell.

Generally, I agree with you on this point. However, it does not address the issues that some methods are incompatible with the Gospel and there are problems when methodology takes precedent over theology. Additionally, you are assuming that more people come to Christ with effective methods. I am not so sure. Can you substantiate this? This is not something that you can easily research with a double blind study.

There are two questions germane to your assertions. How do you know the professions are real and not just emotional hype generated by the methods? How do you know the methods made a difference rather than the working of the Holy Spirit?

Well, this is too broad and inclusive for me to accept or believe to be Biblical. Have you heard of Uzza? (see 1 Chronicles 13) Also, Saul (1 Samuel 13, 15) and Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26) probably used similar reasoning (end justifies the means, etc.) to disobey God and get into their predicaments. In the final analysis, methods do matter.

 

Yeah, remember that I suggested this tactic to you. It means nothing. Why should I take you seriously since you have ignored the things that I have offered previously?

You tell me.

Please tell me specifically how I misrepresented him. BTW, I have made no statements that I cannot stand behind.

Why are you so concerned about what we think of you? Your denials are not persuasive; they rather strengthen what I suspected all along.

 

Here is a simple point I have been trying to make on this thread.
I don't have a Ph.D I admit it okay. My wife does'nt. Neither does my dad who is a layman.
A Christian of 30yrs. I'm just using them as an example.
Now when I let them read the intro of PDL. Specifically page 10 I believe it is. Where RW says :
David was transformed by Goliath's 40 days of challenge.
The spies were transformed by 40 days in the promised land.
Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness.
The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his resurrection.

Do you know what they say without hardly any hesitation. Without me even presenting my views.
OH yeah! Throw in my father in law who was a missionary in Africa for 35 years teaching africans in a Bible institute.
Do you know what they do? First they chuckle because they know this statements are ridiculous.
I can find no where in Scripture how the spies were transformed. I mean if anything they were intimidated by the people in the land and demonstrated no faith. Now what kind of transformation is that?
Jesus was with the disciples close to 50 days not 40.
I think there are other problems with the book as well. I just use these to say that folk with a general knowledge of Scripture can say that at the worst RW is just plain, outright manipulate Scripture at the least he is stretching the truth to fit the theme of his book.

My point is this: Why can laypeople see this blunder yet, 1000's of pastors, theologians with big letters behind their names miss it?

Here is the answer: They dont' want to see it.Its either that or they read it and for a moment in their heart they paused for a moment. Then dismissed the notion and moved on.

Why do they allow themselves to do this?

Because in all reality PDL works it gets results.
I mean hey RW plays a little fast and loose with the Scriptures but who wants to be so pinned down to details. Its pretty close. Well, pretty close is good in horseshoes but not when your talking about actual events that happened that are recorded in the BIBLE! So those things RW has distorted trying to squeeze them into some 40day cure all for the whole world get to slide by. Why? Because Dude it works.

What am I saying: Pragmatism is king!

Personally, I read whats on page 10 then I'm leary from that point on about what the man is going to say. Why? Because RW was not honest on how he handled those stories in from Scripture.

But you know what? "Never question what God is blessing" (RW quote) My how convienient for a man who is wants to start a new reformation in the Body of Christ. Actually, I'm not saying that Warren is stupid but, that quote is down right ignorant. Furthermore the Bible says in more than one place to test things out. In other words "Don't be a gulible idot"

 

You have directed 14 posts at me in this thread and sent me one PM. This is my 5th post directed to you. Now tell us who is consumed with this exercise.

Warren has publicly explained his connection to Schuller. And obviously we will simply disagree on this one since you label Schuller a heretic. I would simply add that you are entitled to this opinion. It doesn't make it right.

The second example relates to the accusation that Warren uses verses out of context. I have asked for specific instances and have been provided none. Sorry I can't reply to accusations with no support.

Furthermore I will not try and defend Warren's exegesis. As I said before, he gets it wrong on occasion. We all do. I am just thankful he is concerned with what the Bible says. Those who have studied NT language in depth realize the validity of Warren's explanation regarding the difficulty and multiplicity in translating Greek. He opts for some translations on occasion that support his point. Guess what? We all do.

Again we will simply disagree on this one. But if you want to offer some concrete examples, it would provide the reader some evidence to support your claim.

I am not suggesting theology and methods are unrelated. I am simply saying that methods cannot be elevated to the same status as theology.

I would concur that you can criticize another's methods based on your own theology. That is not my point. I could hold to some obscure belief regarding the inclusion of music in public worship. I could criticize the method based on my beliefs. Guess what? That does not make the method wrong.

Lots of church people criticize methods with which they disagree (use of drums vs organ, pulpit vs no pulpit, choir vs no choir) and they give equal weight to these methods as they do their theology. Again these methods are criticized b/c of a set of beliefs. Does that make the method right or wrong? No. Methods are distinct from theology (not distinct in the sense they are totally unrelated - distinct in the sense methods and theology do not hold equal weight).

I would go so far as to say that most methodological issues with which most churches are dealing has little or nothing to do with theology. They are not theological issues. They are preference issues. That is just my opinion.

But again -- that does not mean the church which utilizes an altar call is WRONG. There are multitudes of pastors who embrace the human understanding of IR and LA and still give altar calls. Methods and theology are not equal.

Results are from God. No debate there. How do you go beyond what God expects? Does God expect us to communicate his message in a clear and understandable manner? If not, why don't we simply stand and read our Bibles with no sermonic method of engagement. Why would we try and make the gospel understandable when we share Christ with others? Why not just read the text? I personally believe obedience and faithfulness includes presenting the message in a way that is engaging.

The "real results" issue is a moot one. The churches to which I refer have grown as they baptize more believers. Again if a church is not concerned about both sides of the Great Commission (going and making disciples) they are not involved in the whole mission. Numbers are not limited to how many are there on Sunday morning. They are also important in other areas of spiritual development.

By the way, most churches do not have to worry about the problem of "where are all the people we baptized last year?" Most churches are at the other extreme -- no or few baptisms.

I can't speak for everyone but we guage conversions by life stories -- stories of transformation. Obviously no church that is serious about the Great Commission is unconcerned about whether the conversion was genuine. Straw man in my opinion (although I am sure there are some where the number of those who "prayed the prayer" is the only concern). I would say these churches are few and if they are still out there (which they may be in some fundy circles), they have tainted the overall mission.

Give me something specific to address here and I will.

Here is the test tube (and response to the two other questions): do not present the gospel to anyone and see how many people come to faith in Christ. On the other hand, present the gospel to as many people as possible in a manner that is engaging to the heart and mind and see how many people come to faith in Christ.

This answer is not a difficult to find. To be honest with you, I would rather have a few insincere, emotional responses with many legitimate real responses than to have no responses.

It is not my job to convert. It is my job to share and I believe it is our responsibility to share in way that connects to the hearer.

As I said before, if you share the gospel, you employ some type of method.

I am not talking about an "ends justifies the means to disobey God". I have made it clear that we are talking about preserving the purity of the message (faith in Christ alone).

And that is something we can agree on