Why the controversy?

I TOTALLY agree. I've come across several who have swallowed the Da Vinci Code and you can't touch them with a 50' Bible.

 

You just outed yourself. You have no idea what CR is about. If you want to call the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes "New AGe Psychobabble", then you're right. Because that's what CR is built around. Celebrate Recovery focuses on taking responsibility for what's wrong in your life, realizing that you can't control your life, committing your life to Christ and looking forward to the future with God making the necessary changes to correct your character defects.

I would love to see the source of your quote regardng Adult Children of the chemically addicted. I have pretty much everything that's written regarding CR, and there is nothing in there that is specific to that group. Maybe I've overlooked it, but since we are now almost finished with our fourth time through the lesson plan, I think I would have noticed that one.

Now for your co-dependancy quote. Let's put it in the context that it was written. And by the way, shame on you for pulling one sentence out and trying to build your agenda around it. Here's what the whole thing says:

"Codependancy says: I have little or no value. Other persons and situations have all the value. I must please other people regardless of the cost to my person or my values. I am to place myself to be used by others without protest. I must give myself away. If I claim any rights for myself, I am selfish.

Jesus taught the value of the individual. He said we are to love others equal to ourselves, not more than. A love of self forms the basis for loving others. The differences between a life of service and codependency take several forms.

Motivation differs. Does the individual give his service and himself out of free choice or guilt or fear? Does he seek to "please people"? Does he act out of a need to be needed (which means he actually uses the other person to meet his own needs; the helpee becomes an object to help the helper achieve his own goals)

Service is to be an active choice. The person acts; codependants react. Codependents behavior is addictive rather than balanced. Addictions control the person instead of the person being in charge of their own life."

Tonight while you were on the baptist board attacking Rick Warren and Celebrate Recovery, I was in a room full of recovering drug addicts talking with them about surrendering their lives to God so that he could correct their character defects. Most of them had been pretty much written off by their families and friends. Let me tell you about one guy in particular. A year ago he was addicted to Meth, and right before he came to us, he had lost everything he had and was living under a bridge. His mom found him, and his step dad knew about our CR ministry and brought him to see us. For the first month, I wasn't sure he even had eyes, because he never looked up. But he started listening to the lessons, started working the steps, even started coming to church with us on Sundays. In June he gave his life to Christ and I baptized him in July, and he's been a ball of fire ever since. I think if you were to look up "new creature in Christ" in the dictionary, his picture would be there. He is a totally different person today than he was 10 months ago, and the key that opened the door was Celebrate Recovery. I could talk all night about the changed lives we see every week at Celebrate Recovery. The list goes on and on and on. You can call it humanistic, or new age, or psychobabble if you want, but the fact is there is no power in any of that garbage to change anything. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can take a totally wasted life and completely turn it around. You judge a tree by the fruit it produces, and the fruit of CR is radically changed lives.

So I guess I said all that to say this; You couldn't be more wrong about this if you tried.

 

<-- Off Topic Start -->

I am sorry this isn't on topic, but had to write and say that even though I don't know you, this impressed me. I am not a drug addict, and don't know anyone that is right off, but Thanks for doing what you're doing.

It's very refreshing to see someone working with the "unworkable" as some people would put it. Thanks for being an example to me, them and others.

Jamie

<-- Resume Topic -->

 

Hey Puritan, I do stand up for what is wrong in my church if something comes up and people indulging themselves in books and movies that should be viewed as more of a threat than fun and innocent are not. We look for the so called huge sins and sweep over the things which slowly chip away at our sense of right and wrong. As society progresses and God becomes not only a smaller part of our society but is slowly becoming the enemy of this new era. The things which we find entertaining are not neccesarily good things for us to be involved in. We as christians have taken things that seem less harmful such as Harry Potter and compared them to things that are extremely harmful such as real life practicing of witchcraft and some how justify it even though God has condemned those practices in any form either for entertainment purposes or real life sorcerers.

Let us take for example Richard Nixon and the watergate scandal. Back in the 70's when this all took place the whole country was in an uproar and back then that was an act beyond comprehension back then. Now let's take Bill Clinton and all of the things he has done in his two terms as president. Not only did he lie and purge himself but he commited adultery, murder, deceit and the list goes on and on and we did absolutely nothing to him and most of the country has gone as far as to defend him for what he has done. If he did back then what he did in our era then he would have been the first president to be publicly stoned to death or better yet thrown in jail.

My point is that we as a society have grown unsensitive and uncaring to the things God has told us to stay away from, christians and non christians. This does not apply to all christians but I am constantly battling with in my own life to stay alert and not become desensitized to things that are ungodly and the Harry Potter movies and other movies such as real violent movies, scary movies, reality shows and movies and shows that have sex scene after sex scene are key in desensitizing us to the things God would rather have us thinking about. There not huge things but when you have a lot of small things over a longer period of time it becomes one huge mess and we don't even really know it because we have become unaware of it.

If you took a scary movie they make today and brought it back into the 30's and showed it to the people I believe you would terrify them and give them nightmares for the rest of their lives.

 

guitarpreacher (I like the name),

I am sorry, but Rick Warren is way off in a number of areas. I was not very impressed by him singing "purple haze" in front of 30,000 church "fans" at Angels stadium (where is the discernment?). Likewise, his "peace plan" is built on feelings, and not scriptural truth. Thirdly, he quotes the Message throughout his purpose driven life (where is the discernment?). It appears that he is more interested in version fishing to try and prove his doctrine, than right teaching from the Word of God.These are my opinions based on a preliminary examination of his books and actions. After this, I didn't really feel the need to put anymore time into review.

 

Hey Boanerges,

let's take your points one at a time.

As for singing Purple Haze, it was just fun. No one took that as part of the service or as something that was intended to be spiritual. Personally, I wouldn't do Jimi Hendrix, but you never know when I might break out into a little Skynard. It's called having fun and not taking yourself too seriously.

The P.E.A.C.E. plan has nothing to do with feelings. It's about planting churches, equipping leaders, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation. You know, the things that Jesus did and the things that he commanded us to do.

If you don't like The Message, I guess that's okay. It's not my favorite either, but it certainly doesn't discount RW's teaching because he uses it. I prefer to stick with one version as much as possible, but he prefers to use the version that best communicates the point he's trying to make. Nothing wrong with that. Also, keep in mind that if you are a mature, well discipled Christian (and it sounds like you are) probably 90% of what RW writes is not intended for you. So keep in mind that his target for the PDL book wasn't you, but someone who is not a mature Christian or not a Christian at all, and his goal was/is to present the Gospel in as clear and easy to understand way as possible. I think he does a pretty good job of that. Personally, I didn't get that much out of PDL, but I have given several copies to others who benefitted greatly from it.

We've got to get past the idea that if you're not my twin, then you must not be my brother. We can be different and approach ministry differently and embrace different methods - and still be preaching the same gospel. You can do it from the King James, I can do it from the New Living, and RW can do it from the message (don't remember that much about PDL, but in his sermons he uses NIV more than anything else) It's still the same message, and the same Holy Spirit that convicts and draws and the same Christ that saves. I'm glad I don't have to be just like you, and you should be very glad you don't have to be just like me We don't have to be twins to be brothers!

 

GP,

I am trying not to get on my soapbox here, but as a Pastor, RW should be aware of having no appearence of evil. When he got up in front of a church crowd, and sang a song by a man who glorified fornication, drug use, voodoo, etc, it was probably not a very good or well thought out idea. Been there, done that, can't call it fun as a new man.This makes me think that RW is still standing with a foot on each side. That is just my opinion.

 

GP,

I am trying not to get on my soapbox here, but as a Pastor, RW should be aware of having no appearence of evil. When he got up in front of a church crowd, and sang a song by a man who glorified fornication, drug use, voodoo, etc, it was probably not a very good or well thought out idea. Been there, done that, can't call it fun as a new man.This makes me think that RW is still standing with a foot on each side. That is just my opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]We're not that far apart. Like I said, it's not something that I would have done. And I've not heard RW comment on it, but if he had it to do over again, it may be something he wouldn't do again. Heaven knows there's plenty I've said that I wish I could take back or do over. Ever hear of preacher hangovers? That's where you wake up after the weekend, your head hurts, your tired, and you can't believe you really said that

btw, the things you say about Hendrix could also be said of Elvis or a host of other people that most Christians have no problem listening to. Again, the strength of our stand against evil tends to be affected greatly by the style evil takes on.

 

Yes this is true, but unfortunately we can't treat this as a pick or choose smorgasbord. As a pastor (which RW is)and a teacher, (which he claims to be) knowing that he is in the public eye he must maintain clean hands so to speak.

 

Yes - I'd like to know where the poison is.

 

Sounds like pure and unadulterated psychobabble to me.

 

I would try to explain it to you, but I have a feeling it wouldn't do any good.

 

Aaron, you're right on the money there, and pschobabble is most certainly anti-biblical.

I know a woman whose husband quit drinking and smoking through Buddhism. His claim is that all gods and all religions are equal as long as you believe it in your heart. That doesn't make it true, any more than saying that Warren's work is biblical just because it works.

God can use whomever or whatever he wants for his purposes, including RW's stuff. That doesn't make it right.

One reason that I wanted to link you to a place where it's already been done is that there are many books worth of material in replying to the fallacies presented by RW. Posting a few snippets here and there is quite insufficient.

 

Aw, c'mon! Give it the ol' college try! And then I will show you why the sentiment is unbiblical.

 

Okay, I'm listening. In the context that the statement was made, how is it unbiblical.

 

Sounds like pure and unadulterated psychobabble to me. </font>[/QUOTE]So Jesus was lying when he said we should love our neighbors as ourselves? If I do not love myself, I cannot love my neighbor. And, if I do not love God, I cannot love myself.

A person who loves God love himself out of, if nothing else, respect for God.

 

It's very simple. Warren is saying that one must have good feelings about one's self before he can love others. It's the old Harrisonian "I'm okay, you're okay" psychobabble.

That's not what Christ was saying at all when He said to "love your neighbors as yourselves." Because the fact of the matter is that we all love ourselves, even those that say they hate themselves. Don't they still get angry and hurt if someone lies to them, or steals from them or is unfaithful to them? Of course, because they feel that they should be treated fairly. But if one truly hated himself, then he would actually feel vindicated and satisfied when folks mistreated him.

Isn't that how we feel when someone we hate is getting what we think he deserved? If we're honest we'll say yes. So why do we feel different when we're treated that way. Because as Paul stated, no man ever yet hated his own flesh.

There is no lack of self love floating around out there. Men might hate what they have done and think that they ought to die for what they've done, but they never cease loving themselves.

The true basis of loving others is how Christ loved us. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

First of all, Rick Warren didn't write that, John Baker did. Second, other than your first paragraph, I don't really disagree with what you said.

But you failed to keep the quote in context and you didn't keep your Scripture reference in context. Paul is talking about husband wife relationships and is talking about the husbands physical body. If you've never met someone who truly feels they are unloveble, don't deserve love, and really hate their life (not their physical existance, their life) then you should get around people more.

The Baker quote is given in the context of people who have a faulty, un-healthy view of their life, and they become what we call co-dependant. They give, but out of a very un-healthy view of themselves. And this really has nothing to do with feelings. My sense of self worth or value is based on who I am in Christ, even though some days I don't feel Christlike at all. You know that love, whether of yourself or others, is not based on feeling. Which makes you spot on when you say we are to love like Christ loved. Go back and read the entire page again. It's an excellent, Biblically sound quote.