The thing that bothers me the most about Baptist life "post-Rick Warren" is that Baptist churches (especially many of the Southern Baptist churches) have become so consumed with their methodologies that they've forgotten one essential thing that must be present within the Body of Christ - holiness! In the post-Rick Warren era, church committees are now seating around conference tables and asking "How will our people respond to this," rather than asking what does our God think about this! I agree with the sentiments of several others who have posted here - let us put away the books on church growth until we have first consulted the Word of God. I think what we would find is that the church wouldn't have to manipulate cultural relevancy by using praise teams, mood lighting, casual dress, etc. If churches would let God's Word determine their church growth strategies, they would find themselves very relevant to their culture because they would be doing much more ministering and much less manipulating.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Will sucess spoil Rick Warren?"
- Thread starter WHYME
- Start date
Not just the possibility, I submit that it is a great likelihood.
Covertousness seems to be alive and well in the Christian community whenever a large target presents itself. We know it's wrong, so we make up other excuses to excuse the covetous behavior. Accusing someone of worldliness is an easy thing to do, because it's difficult for someone to defend themselves froom the charge.
To Just-want-peace and Johnv, I would respond to your charges of coveteousness by saying that anytime a "little-known" man or woman of God seeks to rebut something that the "better-known" movers and shakers are doing in the world of Christendom, this charge of coveteousness almost always comes up. It has been my experience that many times this charge of jealousy will be used when the man or woman on the bottom of the totem pole starts asking hard questions that should demand some sort of answer.
I recently has this charge thrown against me when I challenged Joel Osteen's comments on Larry King Live. You'll remember the interview - you know, the one where Osteen wouldn't come right out and say that Jesus is the Only Way of salvation. Because I'm a younger Pastor who challenged his unwillingness to speak the truth in love, I was immediately branded as jealous by another Pastor in our community. I can't say that the charge bothered me much because I knew I was standing on God's Word. So it should be in our discussions of Rick Warren - we should use his writings and methodologies as something of a launch pad from which we can view the biblical validity of the issues he raises. All this business of charging some with jealousy and getting into personalities is childish, and often I think it is an attempt at avoiding a deeper discussion of the real issues.
I recently has this charge thrown against me when I challenged Joel Osteen's comments on Larry King Live. You'll remember the interview - you know, the one where Osteen wouldn't come right out and say that Jesus is the Only Way of salvation. Because I'm a younger Pastor who challenged his unwillingness to speak the truth in love, I was immediately branded as jealous by another Pastor in our community. I can't say that the charge bothered me much because I knew I was standing on God's Word. So it should be in our discussions of Rick Warren - we should use his writings and methodologies as something of a launch pad from which we can view the biblical validity of the issues he raises. All this business of charging some with jealousy and getting into personalities is childish, and often I think it is an attempt at avoiding a deeper discussion of the real issues.
GB, don't know if that was directed at me, but in a way you make my point. We should refrain from discussing personalities and making charges of jealousy. Rather, we should stick to a discussion of the issues and their relevancy to the Word of God. Branding someone as jealous just because they challenge the teachings of a man or woman who happens to be in the public spotlight is childish and an attempt at avoidance.
guitarpreacher
New Member
Todd,
Here's the problem - most don't really discuss the "issues". If we were to ask for proof of some problem with RW's doctrine, there would be links posted to websites ripping him apart, but no one would actually hold up something that he actually said. We went through the same thing with Joel Osteen here. (You do know that he publicly apologized for blowing the chance he had on Larry King, right?) All the critics do is quote the opinions of other critics. The other problem is blanket statements that just aren't true. Example:
You said, "In the post-Rick Warren era, church committees are now seating around conference tables and asking "How will our people respond to this," rather than asking what does our God think about this!"
I know for a fact that's not what goes on at Saddleback. Our church is a 3 year old plant that operates on the PDC principles, and we have never done that. The church that sponsored us is a 6 year old PD church, and they have never done that. In fact, the only thing I know of that comes close to what you describe is traditional churches pastored by guys that know they need to change their methods in order to reach their community, but have to worry about the reaction of the pew warmers who control their ministry.
And for the record, Purpose Driven Church is a book about church health, not about church growth.
Here's the problem - most don't really discuss the "issues". If we were to ask for proof of some problem with RW's doctrine, there would be links posted to websites ripping him apart, but no one would actually hold up something that he actually said. We went through the same thing with Joel Osteen here. (You do know that he publicly apologized for blowing the chance he had on Larry King, right?) All the critics do is quote the opinions of other critics. The other problem is blanket statements that just aren't true. Example:
You said, "In the post-Rick Warren era, church committees are now seating around conference tables and asking "How will our people respond to this," rather than asking what does our God think about this!"
I know for a fact that's not what goes on at Saddleback. Our church is a 3 year old plant that operates on the PDC principles, and we have never done that. The church that sponsored us is a 6 year old PD church, and they have never done that. In fact, the only thing I know of that comes close to what you describe is traditional churches pastored by guys that know they need to change their methods in order to reach their community, but have to worry about the reaction of the pew warmers who control their ministry.
And for the record, Purpose Driven Church is a book about church health, not about church growth.
There's a world of truth in all the posts since my last one!
Question, but question in love and with His guidance only.
I submit that the last quote sums up the discussion (for the most part) as relates to a successful ministry. Yes there can be some very valid concerns as to the content/delivery/doctrine/purpose of any given ministry, but let's keep the topic on something tangible rather than "He doesn't support----" with no back-up facts.
Question, but question in love and with His guidance only.
Obviously, there's much that could be said about Warren's methodology and the things that have taken place within local churches in the "post-Warren" era. I'll try and summarize my thoughts by emphasizing what I believe to be the good and bad things that have come out of the whole PD movement.
The most obvious good thing that came out of the PD movement was that it challenged churches to ask themselves, "What on earth are we here for? Why do we do the things we do?" For the very first time, some churches finally started being the church rather than simply doing church. For that, I think the PD movement did something God-sized, and Warren is to be commended for calling churches back to their biblical purpose and means of operation.
That being sad, I think the PD movement (unintentionally) led churches to become far too pragmatic and business-minded when attempting to determine how they would fulfill their God-given purposes. For instance, Warren speaks at length in PDC about "Saddleback Sam" and distinguishing one's target audience. IMO, the PD movement would've been much stronger had it left discussion of all these things out. The reason I say that is because many churches then began to make decisions based on what would be pleasing to "Saddleback Sam" rather than what would be pleasing to God. In too many PD and wanna-be PD churches, that led to a shift towards pragmatism rather than holiness and a deeper understanding of God's Word. Consequently, local churches became much more anthropecentric (man-centered) rather than theocentric (God-centered). That's why so many of the PD and wanna-be PD churches that I've known have been so fadish. Yet, as we all know, fads are much like the shifting sands - you can't build a lasting structure on them. Too many PD churches (and traditional churches) have stopped allowing God's Word to determine their agenda. When God's Word is no longer the Book from which we take our marching orders, then the input of Saddleback Sam and fads will have to do - such is the state of many a church here in the 21st century.
In short, much good was done by the PD movement, but I think we can all see the shortcoming as well.
The most obvious good thing that came out of the PD movement was that it challenged churches to ask themselves, "What on earth are we here for? Why do we do the things we do?" For the very first time, some churches finally started being the church rather than simply doing church. For that, I think the PD movement did something God-sized, and Warren is to be commended for calling churches back to their biblical purpose and means of operation.
That being sad, I think the PD movement (unintentionally) led churches to become far too pragmatic and business-minded when attempting to determine how they would fulfill their God-given purposes. For instance, Warren speaks at length in PDC about "Saddleback Sam" and distinguishing one's target audience. IMO, the PD movement would've been much stronger had it left discussion of all these things out. The reason I say that is because many churches then began to make decisions based on what would be pleasing to "Saddleback Sam" rather than what would be pleasing to God. In too many PD and wanna-be PD churches, that led to a shift towards pragmatism rather than holiness and a deeper understanding of God's Word. Consequently, local churches became much more anthropecentric (man-centered) rather than theocentric (God-centered). That's why so many of the PD and wanna-be PD churches that I've known have been so fadish. Yet, as we all know, fads are much like the shifting sands - you can't build a lasting structure on them. Too many PD churches (and traditional churches) have stopped allowing God's Word to determine their agenda. When God's Word is no longer the Book from which we take our marching orders, then the input of Saddleback Sam and fads will have to do - such is the state of many a church here in the 21st century.
In short, much good was done by the PD movement, but I think we can all see the shortcoming as well.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I don't consider being pragmatic or purpose driven to be independent of a pursuit of holiness and deeper understandings of God's Word.
I also don't know if I would characterize PD as pragmaticism.
I also don't know if I would characterize PD as pragmaticism.
Gold Dragon, maybe your'e right...maybe the PD movement shouldn't be characterized as pragmatism. But consider this: How many fundamental, Bible-believing churches do you know of that condone casual dress in worship, subjective pop-music type singing from the praise teams, very anthropecentric topical preaching from the pulpit, no public invitations, etc.?
Don't get me wrong - I'm definitely not saying that all PD churches have adopted this sort of model. Yet what I am saying is that you simply won't consistently find these types of things in those churches that allow the precepts of God's Word to the determine the means by which they seek to fulfill the Great Commission.
GD, you also raised the question about pragmatism. My question to you would be what good can come out of a pragmatic approach to church growth? Why is it necessary for the Body of Christ to adopt pragmatic modes of operation in order to reach the world for Christ? You might respond by saying that such is the example we find in Scripture and quote 1 Cor. 9:22: "I have become all things to all men that by all means I might save some." I'm not suggesting that we stop being students of our culture, or that the church stop attempting to meet the culture at the point of their need. Rather, what I am suggesting is that pragmatic thinking has gone to an unhealthy extreme in many local churches. I know the subject of this thread is Rick Warren, but the perfect example of a "church" where pragmatism has won the day would be Lakewood Church in Houston. I've listened to many of Osteen's sermons, and what I've found consistently is a complete absence of preaching on such biblical themes as repentance, atonement, the holiness of God, exclusive salvation in Christ, etc. Because pragmatism has become the rule of the day, Osteen's messages are really nothing more than hashed-over power of positive thinking sermons in the order of Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller. Worship is very much a production. The lighting is all very strategic placed - so much of what happens during worship is all about aesthetics. This is what happens when pragmatism becomes more important that fidelity to God's Word.
Sometimes I ask myself (with a bit of sarcasm) "How did the early church ever reach thousands upon thousands of lost people without the use of anthropecentric preaching, praise teams, casual dress, and the like?" Could it be that they were more interested in seeking first the Kingdom and His righteousness than they were with becoming palatable to the culture around them? Just some food for thought.
Don't get me wrong - I'm definitely not saying that all PD churches have adopted this sort of model. Yet what I am saying is that you simply won't consistently find these types of things in those churches that allow the precepts of God's Word to the determine the means by which they seek to fulfill the Great Commission.
GD, you also raised the question about pragmatism. My question to you would be what good can come out of a pragmatic approach to church growth? Why is it necessary for the Body of Christ to adopt pragmatic modes of operation in order to reach the world for Christ? You might respond by saying that such is the example we find in Scripture and quote 1 Cor. 9:22: "I have become all things to all men that by all means I might save some." I'm not suggesting that we stop being students of our culture, or that the church stop attempting to meet the culture at the point of their need. Rather, what I am suggesting is that pragmatic thinking has gone to an unhealthy extreme in many local churches. I know the subject of this thread is Rick Warren, but the perfect example of a "church" where pragmatism has won the day would be Lakewood Church in Houston. I've listened to many of Osteen's sermons, and what I've found consistently is a complete absence of preaching on such biblical themes as repentance, atonement, the holiness of God, exclusive salvation in Christ, etc. Because pragmatism has become the rule of the day, Osteen's messages are really nothing more than hashed-over power of positive thinking sermons in the order of Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller. Worship is very much a production. The lighting is all very strategic placed - so much of what happens during worship is all about aesthetics. This is what happens when pragmatism becomes more important that fidelity to God's Word.
Sometimes I ask myself (with a bit of sarcasm) "How did the early church ever reach thousands upon thousands of lost people without the use of anthropecentric preaching, praise teams, casual dress, and the like?" Could it be that they were more interested in seeking first the Kingdom and His righteousness than they were with becoming palatable to the culture around them? Just some food for thought.
guitarpreacher
New Member
Todd,
Again I think you've missed the point. It's not about what's pleasing to "Saddleback Sam". It's about what is going to be the most effective in reaching "Saddleback Sam" witht he Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Again I think you've missed the point. It's not about what's pleasing to "Saddleback Sam". It's about what is going to be the most effective in reaching "Saddleback Sam" witht he Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Todd,
You asked yourself some good questions. Have you ever thought about how the early church was able to reach thousands of lost people without any kind of pulpit, and without any invitation, and when no one had any Sunday-best clothing? I bet they didn't sing any of the songs that have been sung in the past year in your church or in mine. I think a lot of the things that we think are essential are really probably not that essential after all. The Bible doesn't address which clothes we ought to wear on Sunday, or how new or old our songs can be, or whether we ought to meet once or twice or three times a week. The Bible does address "seeking first the Kingdom and His righteousness", and as you imply, that needs to be our focus. And, I think that's what Warren wants to focus on too.
All about Grace
New Member
I pastor a Bible-believing church that embraces the fundamentals of the faith and we have casual dress (I usually speak in jeans), extremely contemporary music, preaching that addresses real life human needs from a biblical perspective, and have no pulpit and no public invitations.
There you go.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I don't have a negative connotation of the word pragmatic. I consider pragmatic to be the antonym of idealistic. So pragmatists are realistic about their situation and circumstances instead of sticking to ideals or theoreticals in the face of reality. I consider myself and everyone to be idealist in some situations and a pragmatist in others.
I think that is a good thing to keep in mind. That either extreme of pragmaticism or idealism have inherent dangers and cautions.
Complete absence? I've never heard Osteen preach but I have heard him criticized by folks who feel he doesn't preach on certain topics as much as they would like. Those critics often sound very similar in tone towards anyone who is different from them.
Eric Rolen
New Member
Eric Rolen
New Member
this pd is the trend of this new feel good christianity. where no one is right or wrong but just be happy and successful and you will be alright aka joel osteen and rick warren. ppl today dont want to here about hell. they dont want to hear about what the Bible says about salvation. they want to hear thats its going to be alright and they can still play the lottery, drink profusely, listen to rock music, wear provactive clothing and do all the things of this world and not of Christ! there needs to be a fire of evangelism sweep this nation and spread the true word of God and save these lost "happy" souls! Purpose Driven people straight to blatant disregard for Scripture
Rolen, you obviously didn't read the article, or know much about Warren. He is constantly preaching right and wrong. He has firm convictions about abortion, homosexuality, hell, discipleship, obedience, etc and expresses those openly in media and from the pulpit. What Scripture are people disregarding when they are Purpose driven? The one that says that the church should be only the suffering, miserable few?
guitarpreacher
New Member
You should educate yourself on the subject before you speak out. It will help you not look foolish.