# Purpose Driven Worship Defined



## Robin (Dec 1, 2005)

An excerpt from Saddleback's Music Director, Rick Munchow:


Connected to the Spirit of God, music is one of the most powerful tools available to reach and win your target group. The senior pastor who embraces this fact can allow music to transform, whether he is confronted with compliments or criticisms of purpose-driven music. The music minister who uses music strategically to serve and support the purposes of the church, as understood and communicated by the senior pastor, should enjoy confidence and unity as he ministers. 

Here are a few tips that will help you program your music to serve the purposes. As an example, let's program the music for a seeker-sensitive service: 

First, identify the purpose of the service: seeker service = evangelism. 

Second, *let* the Spirit lead. Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches, apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5, NIV)." It is vitally important that the programmer is experiencing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and depending on the Spirit to lead. I know this may sound basic, but it is something all of us need to remind ourselves of every day. *Apart from him, we can do nothing*. My best days begin and end with a quiet time, including Bible study, prayer, devotion, and praise. 

Third,*identify your target* and define the event. The target at Saddleback's weekend seeker services is the adult seeker. The target determines the musical style, lyric content, presentation (congregational/special music), length of service, and "stage look" of the event. *The target does not determine the purpose* That would be target driven, not purpose driven; however it is important to look at the event from the target's perspective. 

Finally, select event features and sequence them in a service flow that will attract your target to the event, keep him listening, eventually move him to life-change, and ultimately to becoming a Christian. In a given event, all of the purposes may be represented, but only one may be emphasized. However, the target must be specific to maximize effectiveness. In our example though, Saddleback's weekend services emphasize all five purposes throughout the year -- the target is always the adult seeker. The most common event features used at Saddleback are music (performance and congregational singing), sermon (message), drama, video, and testimony. The five purposes do not change, but they are communicated through the event features in a way that the seeker can understand. 

The source:

http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/WorshipCommunity/ImplementingPD/implementingpdmarch.htm

 Thoughts?

(There is so much in this article...I hope we can give this some sober thinking and discernment...)

Robin


----------



## CalsFarmer (Dec 1, 2005)

As I have posted twice before...Warren and his ilk receive way too much airtime on this board.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 1, 2005)

I have just one thought:

It seems as though this is way too man-centered in its approach, and not God-centered.

Its all about the audience, coaxing the person to respond, "moving" the person to feel a certain way, pulling him towards your designated end, which I guess in this case is "making a decision to receive Jesus."

This smacks of "business/marketing success" and not "kingdom success".

I often wonder what the Apostle Paul would do/say about things like this if he were alive on earth today. I wonder if he'd be taking part in this "target market" strategies in order to build God's kingdom. 

Sure, people can quote all the time about how Paul "became all things to all men," but I don't really see any examples of him making the message "easier to swallow" in hopes of attracting as many people as possible and making following Christ as close as possible to their current lives/tastes/and trends.



I apologize if I've offended any of my sensitive brethren/sisters by commenting yet again. My purpose is to discuss worldly strategy vs. kingdom ends, not to attack the person, character, or reputation of another.


----------



## Robin (Dec 1, 2005)

One thing I noticed is the saying of one thing then immediately, a contracition.

Example: "let" the Spirit lead.....yet, "You can do nothing..."

This reveals a different theology than is in Scripture.

Basically, HOW do we allow God to do XYZ when He is supposed to be all-powerful? 

This begs the question: what god are we worshipping? The God of the Bible?



r.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> As I have posted twice before...Warren and his ilk receive way too much airtime on this board.


As the best-selling book on the Christian market I don't know that his teaching can receive too much airtime quite frankly.

I go to a Southern Baptist affiliated Church here in Okinawa (long story even though I'm very Presbyterian). The interim preacher wants to start bringing the Church through the Purpose Driven Life in January as a series of sermons. I'm seeing what I can do to educate him otherwise.

When I visited my father-in-law's Church in Yelm, WA the Church was going through PDL. The preacher actually spent more time quoting Rick Warren than he quoted the Bible.

When I visited a friend's Church in Havelock, NC while on TAD last year, the Church was going through, yes, the PDL. The sermon was on a topic from the book.

His work is having a profound impact on Evangelicalism. I, for one, appreciate the opportunity to read about and discuss on a free forum the conclusions his theology draws and the consequences of it.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 2, 2005)

Rich,
That reminds me of a story: 
When I was in Virginia a year of so ago, I was having great difficulty finding a sound, reverent church. I went to a nice Lutheran church and was seriously considering making my regular attendance there, and sure enough, everybody was handed a brochure talking about how for the next few months, the church was going PDL.

Even down here in FL, one of my brothers kept encouraging me to go to his big Baptist church where everything seemed so wonderful. I would watch his pastor on TV every Sunday before going to my church and sure enough, he just announced how the next few months will be devoted to PDL, and the pastor quickly closed the door to any criticism and warned members of the congregation to be very wary of anyone who would dare criticize the program. So if you even dared to speak a word to anyone concerning it, they have already been innoculated against your input and you would be immediately branded as being divisive.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 2, 2005)

I think we need to be careful not to overreact to Warren. That doesn't mean he's right on everything. But there is a reason his stuff is so attractive and we as Bible believing faithful Christians had better learn why. Errors spread because the Church is failing some where. 

Regarding the initial post here, a pastor is a fool is he doesn't take into account the general composition of the audience he is preaching to. Paul did this in Acts. It's not "seeker-senstive" to adjust the gospel to the audience. It would be "seeker-senstive" to compromise the gospel for the audience. There is a big difference.

Regarding his comment "let the Spirit lead" I didn't understand him as trying to limit God, but simply advocating submission to God. Is that not what Scripture is doing when we are commanded to not greive the Spirit? The omnipotent Spirit at that? 

If we are going to thoroughly critique Warren then we have to get to the heart of the matter, not try to semantically corner him and find Arminianism behind every phase. You will totally miss core problem if you do that.


----------



## gwine (Dec 2, 2005)

and


----------



## lwadkins (Dec 2, 2005)

The church fails in its first misson outside of worship, making disciples. Things like PDL groups are a substitute for true discipleship.


----------



## Robin (Dec 3, 2005)

A Preview of "Redefining Christainity" by Bob Dewaay by Tim Challies

Here is a concise summary of DeWaay's thesis:

The version of Christianity that Rick Warren presents to world leaders redefines the message of the first century apostles. The key difference is that the Biblical version did not appeal to the world; it appealed only to those who were converted. Warren´s version is popular with the world. Rick Warren has designed a message that appeals to religious consumers whether or not the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their sins. He has devised a business system to mass-market this message to the world. Through his system, he has created a way for pastors to share his success. The sheer effectiveness of this system is rapidly transforming evangelicalism. This transformation is not just a transformation of practice; it is a transformation of message. The change in the practice makes it transferable across a wide spectrum of denominational and theological affiliations. The change in the message makes it acceptable to a wide range of religious consumers.

Read the entire preview analysis of Pastor Dewaay's book, by Tim Challies:

http://www.challies.com/archives/001478.php

 R.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 3, 2005)

What I don't get is not that we should'nt have basic christianity taught but why do we need to stoop to Warren's level?? 

He gleans from false teachers, like Dr. Cho, Scheuler, etc.... 

That alone we should'nt touch him with a ten meter cattle prod!!

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think we need to be careful not to overreact to Warren. That doesn't mean he's right on everything. But there is a reason his stuff is so attractive and we as Bible believing faithful Christians had better learn why. Errors spread because the Church is failing some where.
> 
> Regarding the initial post here, a pastor is a fool is he doesn't take into account the general composition of the audience he is preaching to. Paul did this in Acts. It's not "seeker-senstive" to adjust the gospel to the audience. It would be "seeker-senstive" to compromise the gospel for the audience. There is a big difference.
> ...



 

I am 100% behind testing RW and the PDL "method" against Scripture and doctrine, but I wonder why there is such a vehement rejection of a movement calling folks back to the "Heart of Worship" and a message rejecting the "me" centered pop-culture? 

What is wrong with recognizing the effectiveness of diversity in worship and the leveraging the power of the Arts to reveal the Master Artist?

I absolutely do not posit that we should tailor the Gospel to the culture, but why not tailor worship to be as efficacious and edifying as possible? 

I am all about the Regulative Principle, but the Principle should be a "guide" rather than a "shackle" to Christian liberty.

"His yoke is easy and His burden is light"

my ...


----------



## Robin (Dec 4, 2005)

I get what you're driving at JD...but precisely *who* is the "his" in "his burden is light?" Mounting evidence reveals Warren pours different meanings into Christian words.

So using a poly-theistic, false-god worship dance is OK in the church when we slap Jesus' name on it?
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/magnification/fullstory.asp?id=6458





Robin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


It seems to me that the Saddleback approach is to focus on the "me" centered pop culture to determine the design of the Church.

An excerpt from "The Promise Driven Church" in the Nov/Dec 2005 _Modern Reformation_:


> ...in 1980, a young Rick Warren was taking Schuller's approach a step further, and entering real 7-Up territory. Like Schuller, Warren showed up in Southern California with nothing. Like Schuller, Warren went door to door taking an opinion poll. But Warren's question was different. Schuller wanted to know what people liked in a Church. Warren wanted to know what people didn't like. He asked "Why do you think most people don't attend church?"
> 
> "I asked myself, what kind of church are we going to be? And I decided, why don't we be a church for people who hate church? There are plenty of good churces around here. Why don't we have church for people who hate church? And so I went out and for twelve weeks I went door to door, and I knocked on homes for about twelve weeks and just took an opinion poll."
> 
> ...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

1) church is boring; 

2) church members are unfriendly; 

3) the church is precoccupied with money

4) the church child care is inadequate. 

Which of these issues, if valid, is an unbiblical principle for consideration of remediation by church leadership to facilitate the edification of the Church?

Psalm 23

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, 
he leads me beside quiet waters,

Which purpose promotes "me" centered worship?



> We were planned for God´s pleasure, so your first purpose is to offer real worship.
> 
> We were formed for God´s family, so your second purpose is to enjoy real fellowship.
> 
> ...






> Warren emphasizes that worship is more than music, it's a lifestyle. He says many churches today segment their Sunday services into times of worship and times of teaching, but Warren says every part of a church service is an act of worship - not intended for personal benefit but for bringing pleasure to God. He also notes that you worship by the way you live "“ it's not just a Sunday morning event.



What is "me" centered about that?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I get what you're driving at JD...but precisely *who* is the "his" in "his burden is light?" Mounting evidence reveals Warren pours different meanings into Christian words.
> 
> So using a poly-theistic, false-god worship dance is OK in the church when we slap Jesus' name on it?
> ...



oops - I missed this, Robin, sorry:

My rebuttal - using a predominantly p o r n & pop-culture driven technology to promulgate doctrine, fellowship and prayer is OK as long as it is done in the name of Christ?


Is it ok to adopt poly-theistic, false-god worship philisophical methodologies developed by pagans to theology?



All in the context of re-purposing, of course...



> I get what you're driving at JD...but precisely who is the "his" in "his burden is light?" Mounting evidence reveals Warren pours different meanings into Christian words.



Not sure I understand this - "His" is God - His yoke is easy and His burden is light - which part of this has been mis-contextualized by RW?


[Edited on 12-4-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 4, 2005)

This part concerns me:



> Whether it's soda pop or pop Christianity, the marketing works. It's a surefire approach. *Reinforce the negative brand perception or your competition* - boring, unfriendly, and greedy. Present yourself as the alternative - exciting, friendly, and caring.



I've never thought of it this way before, but it seems this is exactly what's going on. Its so easy to bad-mouth "the Church" by pointing out problems and attacking straw men; but should other churches be doing this to each other? And especially before a watching world?

I have read that even with all this hoopla over the megachurches, the overall attendance in America is stagnant. What is happening is that larger, more exciting, more fun, more program churches are attracting members from other congregations. Its almost like the "Wal-Mart" phenomenon is happening to Christianity. The mom and pop churches will be slowly diminishing, and those churches with the best "economies of scale" will flourish. Church-goers have become consumers, and its our job to find out what they want and give it to them.

And JD,
When you list these purposes from PDL, I would have to take exception as follows:

*We were planned for God´s pleasure, so your first purpose is to offer real worship.*

"Real" worship... again, the issue with the hula concerns me greatly. I'm not sure if pop songs and other forms of entertainment are adequately meeting the criteria of "real" worship.

*We were formed for God´s family, so your second purpose is to enjoy real fellowship. *

I am finding it increasingly difficult to find "real" fellowship when this fellowship is more centered on "doing more" and less on resting on Christ's finished work, which, by the way, is almost NEVER talked about. In fact, I have never heard even one of my PDL friends (which is all of them, EVER mention it. EVER.)

*We were created to become like Christ, so your third purpose is to learn real discipleship.*

I'm not sure if learning the "purposes" and trying to help others do the same is "discipleship." Sure there is a heavy emphasis on "doing", and "dying to self", and "carrying one's cross", but when these elements are instituted without a HEAVY emphasis on the Gospel and on the person and work of Jesus Christ, the meaning tends to get clouded. Discipleship should be about growing in our love towards Jesus Christ, not volunteering more, and stopping this and starting that....


*We were shaped for serving God, so your fourth purpose is to practice real ministry.*

I will agree that the heavy emphasis on serving others is good.

*We were made for a mission, so your fifth purpose is to live out real evangelism.*

This I have a great problem with. I've already quoted a couple of times the "Gospel" of "receive Jesus, and congratulations, welcome to the family of God!"

My PDL friends have the shallowist comprehension of the Gospel imaginable. What I really hear them saying over and over is, "Gee, we've GOT to do something to get people to stop sinning!"

I bet if we polled the next thousand people who read PDL and asked them, "How would you explain the Gospel?", they would give us a list of works, and of course, say, "You need to receive Jesus."

"Real evangelism" STARTS with learning the Gospel ourselves. So many people are wound up and motivated to "start sharing" without ever having received that which to share.

I hope I'm not making a straw man, but this has been my continual experience over the past couple of years. 

And please, could a holiday or birthday PLEASE go by without someone sending me another copy of this book??? Thank you!

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by alwaysreforming]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 1) church is boring;
> 
> 2) church members are unfriendly;
> ...


You miss the point entirely. I don't even know how to respond to your question fully when you're not even dealing with the substance of the criticism of the methodology. There are plenty of Biblical "principles" practiced by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It does not mean that they are a true Church. I am not suggesting Saddleback is a false Church (though there are significant issues) but I just mean to suggest that your argument is very weak.

What concerns me more is that most discerning, confessing Evangelicals would read the excerpt and the blaring problem would scream out at them. Somehow you are missing the really loud message in the excerpt and focusing on the minutiae.

What is the _Biblical_ basis for determining how one ought to structure and focus a Church? You seem to find it inconsequential that the foundational principles for a Church are gleaned from a survey.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 4, 2005)

I think we need to get back to the core issue here. What is lacking in the Church today to make people leave otherwise sound churches to join mega churches? Certainly there are unbelievers in the mix who don't care about essentials but just want to meritoriously sit in the pew. But there are believers too who for some reason, don't feel they can participate in the Church. PDL ideas give people something to do. They can participate and feel part of something bigger than themselves. The Church needs to recover this, especially Reformed Churches. All Christians are spiritually gifted to particpate in the congregation somehow. You don't have to be ordained, or a musician, to participate in Church. It seems most people have forgotten that fact. All believers need to be serving in the Church in some capacity, whatever their gift from the King equips them for. This is probably where the Church is failing, and why PDL gets so much attention. Christians want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to serve their King. If their church doesn't foster that, then they will go to another church where they can serve.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think we need to get back to the core issue here. What is lacking in the Church today to make people leave otherwise sound churches to join mega churches? Certainly there are unbelievers in the mix who don't care about essentials but just want to meritoriously sit in the pew. But there are believers too who for some reason, don't feel they can participate in the Church. PDL ideas give people something to do. They can participate and feel part of something bigger than themselves. The Church needs to recover this, especially Reformed Churches. All Christians are spiritually gifted to particpate in the congregation somehow. You don't have to be ordained, or a musician, to participate in Church. It seems most people have forgotten that fact. All believers need to be serving in the Church in some capacity, whatever their gift from the King equips them for. This is probably where the Church is failing, and why PDL gets so much attention. Christians want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to serve their King. If their church doesn't foster that, then they will go to another church where they can serve.


So we need to recover the idea of the priesthood of all believers? Agreed BUT do we need 40 Days of Purpose? I find the "program" to be a poor imitation of the real thing.


----------



## Robin (Dec 4, 2005)

Patrick...you always have something substantial to say! Thanks for your insights and wisdom.  You sparked some ideas, for me....

Though I'd agree, the Church (as a whole) is weak and fails to care for the flock (mostly by preaching The Gospel)...I really think hoards of folks flock to the mega churches due to their own sinful appetites. They are not victims per se'; but dragged away by their own sins.

The New Testament portrays those fallen to false teaching a result of self-imposed ignorance or "itching ears." At a sound reading of the Scriptures (Jude, for example), true sheep will rightly feel concerned about one's personal potential weaknesses to indulge in conceit; sloth, self-righteousness; and one's bent on looking to self instead of depending entirely upon the work of Christ. (Lord have mercy! literally)

Pastors who are lazy; arrogant and treacherous so as to adopt a teaching curriculum that clearly supplants Scripture, are responsible for the havoc passed-on to their flocks. Calvin's exhortation about the sin of pastors having most to do with ambition applies. For that is exactly what PDL is about: AMBITION. (Even for "the gospel" and in the "name of evangelism" -- it's still ambition.)

Folks anxious for something "to do" are not a consequence of the Church failing to find something to include them. It is a failing of the Church to preach & teach the one and only True Gospel to the flock each and every Lord's Day. If that happened, they would flee to Christ, knowing their inadequacies and instead of selfishly obsessing about "individual purposes" would know that the BODY of Christ expresses gifts in tutti (together) in the congregation. They would consider others more important than themselves. A real Reformation would occur. The 3 Forms system of: guilt; grace; gratitude.

To the Christian longing to be a part of something "bigger" - this is sinful and veering towards the human bent to "be as God." The Christian is supposed to long to DIE for the sake of the Gospel (as per Calvin and Paul.)

I wonder what Scripture says about the appetite for bigger, more important purposes? (Sons of Zebedee comes to mind.) I thought Jesus said if we are to be first, we must seek to serve and be last? Otherwise known as humility and modesty. The true Faith produces reverence and awe towards God Almighty; the King of Creation who mercifully, and at His sovereign pleasure, imparts grace to sinners. If that isn't The Ultimate becoming a part of something bigger (for a sinner) I don't know what is. Scripture teaches this idea - not personal purposes. The knowledge of Christ compels the true Christian to obey the Law in gratitude. Scripture clearly teaches Christ is not for sale. - the real Jesus cannot be sold. Remember Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8 who sought to purchase the power of the Spirit? Things like PDL are out there recruiting all types of "Simons" indiscriminately.

We will never see Rick Warren teach about the "purpose of John the Baptist" who lived only to serve as forerunner of THE PROMISE of the Creator; or Judas Iscariot, who was predestined to betray the Christ, to the peril of his soul for all eternity.

Selah 

Robin



[Edited on 12-5-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 4, 2005)

Robin & Rich,

I agree whole heartedly regarding the very subtle Gospel supplanting nature of Warren's and similar teachings. That's why it is so insideous regardless of what he the man intends. Atheist and Mormons are very sincere to. You need to visit Ky and see the effect first hand this has on a Southern saturated church culture, esp. SB and the General Christian denomination.

At the end of the day what Warren's and similar type teachings have that "draws" people is that it answers our inherent fallen need for "law", little - l, something "I can do" to implicitly "work my way to heaven", garner God's favor, let God 'look at me', OH by the power of "grace" (read gnostic power/substance) though.

Lost is the slaying of the old fallen Adam at the cross of Christ which manifestly says, "You can do nothing and by dying you live." Warren and his like fellows teaching always, ALWAYS, leads to one of two paths: 1. Despair or 2. Pride. AND neither are FAITH.

Odd how so many defend Warren yet fail to defend Christ. But then again we do indeed to tend to glory in the works of man for the cross is not a pretty picture.

L


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

> What is the _Biblical_ basis for determining how one ought to structure and focus a Church? You seem to find it inconsequential that the foundational principles for a Church are gleaned from a survey.



Oh, I understand the core of the issue - I don't think you understand that all the Scriptural theorizing has not produced a united church nor a winsome church environment. Particularly the shepherds that are more concerned with the purity of their doctrine and less about preparing the pasture for the flock to be fed, when both should have equal emphasis.

You who should be teachers are being taught the elementary things - Love God AND love your neighbor - how do you display your love for your neighbor if your house of worship is inhospitable and your teaching/preaching is not winsome?

You basically are saying to the sheep - get over it - it's MY way or the highway - and I am NOT talking about the preaching of the Gospel - that is an absolute necessity - I am talking about the methods and means of feeding the sheep.

Why is there such a derision of those that place the Gospel and worship in a context that is understandable by the sheep? 

Why would we rather wound the conscience of the Elect babes in Christ instead of taking the Truth to them in a manner that is loving, comprehensable to them, winsome and actionable?

Yes, the Gospel is anathema to the world - why are we making the church anathema to the sheep?

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

I agree Larry.

I understand the desire to commend portions of PDL and Warren's work in general because it seems like we're throwing the babies out with the bathwater.

Let me just say that it is good that we tithe our mint and cumin but there are weightier matters to consider here. There are nuances that are cancerous to the health of the Church. If people have not read the article "The Promise Driven Life" then they really ought to:

http://www.modernreformation.org/mh05promise.htm

Modern Reformation has been following these movements for some time. 

Biblical Theology is a healthy mix of indicative (Christ is our righteousness, God is the Just and Justifier, ...) and imperative (He who obeys my commands is the one who loves Me...). It seems like so much picking of nits when people start beating up a guy like Rick Warren because he is giving solid advice on Biblical imperatives. Such ideas are Godly after all, are they not?

It's the balance that's out of whack. The see-saw is totally weighted with imperatives. It's the reason why in modern Evangelicalism folks don't really sense a difference between themselves and any other religion that has a set of "moral values".

I've seen the fruits of PDL in many versions over the last few years. I have been universally unimpressed with the results in the lives I know very personally. Churches that do this stuff seem consistently ignorant in the indicatives of the Gospel.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals went to a Christian Booksellers Conference a couple of years ago and interviewed 60 professing believers with the simple question "What is the Gospel?" A single person was able to represent it accurately with words of Atonement. All else had various forms of Pelagianism. Mike Horton said that when R.C. Sproul heard the people being interviewed while driving he had to pull over so he could weep and compose himself before driving off.

To me this is far more than a theoretical objection to a formula I disagree with or being punctillious about the Regulative Principle of Worship. I have been under the effects of this form of 5 steps to holiness program before but, more importantly, I have many friends and family that are still in Churches captivated by such shallow doctrine. I have attended or visited a Church in CA where my wife's family attends for over 11 years now. In that time, I have NEVER, not once, heard a basic explanation of the Gospel as Christ our Righteousness. Not once. I've heard a lot of Scripture fairly accurately represented in terms of our duty as Christians but NOT the Gospel. This is my consistent report to nearly every broadly Evangelical Church I have visited.

It breaks my heart.

Thus, I will not argue the issue of whether some of what Rick Warren says is Biblical. It's what he leaves out that I have a problem with. Just more weight on the side of moral maxims with which to live your life divorced from the power of the Gospel that enables it to begin with.

So the seesaw is ever heavier on one end.

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

> Thus, I will not argue the issue of whether some of what Rick Warren says is Biblical. It's what he leaves out that I have a problem with. Just more weight on the side of moral maxims with which to live your life divorced from the power of the Gospel that enables it to begin with.



Thus we are agreed - if RW truly de-emphasizes/denies the transformative nature of the Gospel, Christ's atoning work and our absolute dependance on the grace of God and His sovereignty as truly revealed through Scripture, then I will accept the discernment of my wiser brothers/sisters and be advised of this "wolf in sheep's clothing". 

BUT - I will ALWAYS strive to create/support an atmosphere of love and worship that will edify and draw the Elect's mind, heart and spirit to the glory of God. From the meekest sheep to the hoariest saint...


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 4, 2005)

I don't understand why no one reponded to my post on how Warren is heavily influenced by false teachers is enough to avoid him altogether.

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

Well, some substantiation of your assertion would be helpful.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 4, 2005)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/012/1.42.html 

http://www.pastors.com/articles/ChoInterview.asp

You see I've posted this before on other thread's but no one seem's to pay attention 

That alone should settle it. Why bother with him he obviouselly is in the wrong crowd ie the one we should avoid if we can't help it.

Blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Folks anxious for something "to do" are not a consequence of the Church failing to find something to include them. It is a failing of the Church to preach & teach the one and only True Gospel to the flock each and every Lord's Day. If that happened, they would flee to Christ, knowing their inadequacies and instead of selfishly obsessing about "individual purposes" would know that the BODY of Christ expresses gifts in tutti (together) in the congregation. They would consider others more important than themselves. A real Reformation would occur. The 3 Forms system of: guilt; grace; gratitude.
> 
> To the Christian longing to be a part of something "bigger" - this is sinful and veering towards the human bent to "be as God." The Christian is supposed to long to DIE for the sake of the Gospel (as per Calvin and Paul.)



Robin, apparently you misinderstood me. I agree with your comment about tryannical or ambitious pastors. But, I don't think it's wrong for Christians to want to "do things." To do it for justification or self-righteousness is certainly wrong. But every true believer longs to serve the King, and to serve the body of Christ. It's part of the new nature to love God and serve Him and his fellow brethren. Christ dispenses gifts to EVERY beleiver that MUST be used in the service of the Church. That's is why the Spirit gives them in the first place. The principle of desiring "to be part of something bigger than ourselves" I think is perfectly natural both to the natural and renewed man. Everyone longs to be somehow part of a community, part of something worth while. And if the Church is functioning right, this need will be met in the true Christian. It is a joy to serve our Savior together. I think guys like Warren are simply leaching off this need because the Church is failing to do its job at utilizing the gifts Christ has given to her. Can you imagine what every Reformed Church would look like if every member actually served in the Church in some form of ministry or service? But in most it is only the Session and the organist who serve the Church. Not much fun for people who want to love and serve Jesus. And we wonder why Reformed churches are dying? It makes them susceptible to guys like Warren or the Emerging Church to latch onto that need, and use it as a funnel for their errant theology. It's what the Mormon's do with family, or the JW's do with hell. it's what gangs to with teens. Whenever the Church fails, the devil will spawn a heretical group in response to the Church's failure, in order to lead sheep astray. Warren is successful because people feel like they don't have a purpose in their life. If we were truly preaching the gospel, and the correct response to grace in utilizing our gifts to serve, then Warren's teachings would be fruitless, because Christians would understand their purpose.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/012/1.42.html
> 
> http://www.pastors.com/articles/ChoInterview.asp
> ...



Nno one denies the errors he may be teaching. The point is, why are they spreading? Heresies piggyback on the failures of the Church. That is why we shouldn't write him off immediately or ignore him. Heretical groups remind the Church to be faithful.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 4, 2005)

Don't mistake me here Patrick. I think heretic's should be given there own type of attention. Just not that of learning under them or gleaning any truth that may happen to be within there teaching.

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

> Purpose-Driven principles are best explained with two diagrams you can scribble on a napkin. One is the baseball diamond, used to explain the flow of church ministry in a person's life. Vast crowds attend church, but they reach first base, Membership, only by completing Class 101 and signing a covenant of commitment to Christ and the church. Second base is Maturity, reached through another class (201) featuring a covenant of commitment to a daily quiet time, tithing, and a small group. Third base is Ministry, in which members commit to serving actively in the church. They are interviewed and placed in one of dozens of thriving church ministries. Home base is Mission, in which Christians commit to the cause of evangelism. At the center of the diamond is Magnification, which stands for worship. How can one reach maturity before committing to mission or ministry? Chalk it up to the Baptist penchant for alliteration. Purpose-Driven churches make worship the starting point"”it's where unchurched people experience the church and decide to commit. *It's also the end, since everything centers on glorifying God.* (emphasis mine - JDL)
> 
> ....................................................................
> 
> ...




Ok, I read both articles - I am not familiar with this Cho fellow - my bad - but the article seemed to be discussing using the Internet for ministry?

The other article was fairly mundane - I pulled a couple quotes from the article.

Is there an article that *details* out the heresy that RW is promulgating?

Or an interview with an "approved" church leader and RW?

Looking for some help, here...


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 5, 2005)

i think you misunderstood me I was saying he is highly influenced and has associated with heretical teachers. That much should be ascertained.

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

so...guilt by association?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 5, 2005)

Yes. it seem's that for you it's ok if a Pastor is influenced and associates with known false teacher's? Is that a correct statement?

If you read the article about RW from christiainity today you would see he took classes at Scheulers school and they were highly influencial towards the formation of his movement. As well he is in contact with Hybels from Willow Creek who is a big promoter of seeker sensitive garbage. 

I believe Robin made a post awhile back about how [email protected],Mother Tereasa, were big Christians in his book. Even though [email protected] is a blatent heretic and Mother Tereasa denied the faith in her diary published after her death.

So if that does'nt bother you then by all mean' join the crowd. 

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

So...St.Augustine's teachings should be disregarded since he studied and utilized paganistic philisophical methods?

You know he was also a Manichean, too, for a while?

You know Paul was influence by Greek philosophy, too, yes?

What about Christ and the tax collectors and sinners?

You don't think it is possible to test everything and keep the good?

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 5, 2005)

Get back on track gentlemen. More charity please.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

- sorry - got a little "enthusiastic"


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 5, 2005)

JD,
I think your over exagerating here. You mention Paul, Jesus, and Augustine having associated with unbeleivers or false teachers. Now if you reread what I posted you would understand that I'm not saying Warren can not study these false teachings in order to defend against them. 

I'm saying that Warren has associated with them in the WRONG way. He has been influneced by them which is apparent in his method's. There is a difference between Augustine being a manichean and not being one and writting against it. 

I apologize if I came off to harsh. 

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

It's ok - I am fairly passionate about extending grace to those whom at least are making an impact and I do not think it is our place to judge a brother that we have not gone up to and said - "Brother, you have offended me."

Maybe I am just concerned that we look at all the reasons why NOT to support our kindred as they prepare a winsome environment and the things I do read on their website, while it may be elementary, is not error filled.

It seems that we are so "zealous" here to combat error that we see it in everything around us - we begin a process of endless regression that peels away our unity bit by bit until the remnant is a distillation of applied Law - binding our Liberty in Christ.

Every expression of Liberty is NOT the path to the slippery slope toward license and heresy.

So my point was: Associating with sinners and trying to test everything and keep the good within bounds is not necessarily an indicator of heresy - it can be the pathway to growth or the doorway to righteousness and forgiveness.

BTW - Thanks!  

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 5, 2005)

JD,
I think it's best I just leave this where it is at. Me personally would not use warren's material due to his 'influences'. unfortunately I'm in circumstane's where I have to put with such thing's. But I've got myslef to work on before I can envangelize the world. 

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 5, 2005)

Thanks, brother - may the richness of God's blessings be on you!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 5, 2005)

and your


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2005)

Hey, JD,

Here are some references for your inspection.

There is a growing body of evidence and literature forming about many serious problems with Warren's theology. Actually, what is happening is the meanings of concepts and words he uses are gradually coming to light. It's been tough to discern him because there's been so much ambiguity and RW is expert and not allowing himself to be subject to direct accountability.

This article is well done, explaining the problem with RW's portrayal of Jesus as God/Man - hypostatic union. 

http://www.atrueandfaithfulwitness.com/fork.htm

Here's another site that has a sound and thorough explanation of how PDL twists, overstates, obscures Scripture's accurate meanings:

http://www.purposeverses.com/

A preview of a solid analysis book (due out '06) on how RW "redefines" Christianity:

http://www.challies.com/archives/001478.php

These are only a few...but if you do a search on the web for words like: "Rick Warren false teacher Purpose Driven problems heresy" a host of references show up.

I agree with mercy and restraint in judging - however, the damages are surfacing daily. Please extend some patience as you examine these reports, OK? 

On another note....beginning in Exodus, God lays down a clear model for how He demands He be worshipped. The idea that we have freedom to emote and make-up whatever "style" desireable to bring before God as worship is erroneous and sinful. (You DID know this, right?) 



r.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 6, 2005)

JD,

Again, my, and many others, objections are not an attempt to "look for the bad rather than the good" but, frankly, not finding much good in what we find.

I've read some things from RW that would cause me to conclude he's probably really sincere. He even subscribes to Modern Reformation so he's probably elect. 

I must, however, discern his work by its influence, at large, on the broader Evangelical community. That's what's at issue - his written work and its influence and not the man or his particular Church.

Does the modern Church need any more "how to reach out", "how to create dynamic worship", "how to empower ministries", and a host of other books like them? People keep looking at the symptom of modern Evangelicalism that people are self-centered and not active in Ministry or vibrant in life and so they keep on coming up with practical ideas or steps on how to achieve that.

What they are missing is the HEART of the issue. The pulpits are no longer transforming people. The Word and the Gospel are not central to worship. When my in-laws visited our OPC Church in Temecula a few years back they said: "That was a good service and a good sermon but I really want more worship in Church." I didn't need them to explain it to me because I used to be the worship leader of the Church they still go to and believed the same thing at one time. They were looking for that 40 minute existential event that would cause them to emotionally free themselves and connect to God for 40 minutes. The preaching of the Word was not worship to them and I can understand why based on the Church they go to - the Gospel is never preached. How can you experience God without the Gospel? This problem is EPIDEMIC.

Does RW's book really contribute to the solution of the problem? No. It adds to it. It just provides a Church hungry for methods to find more methods. It provides a Church with symptoms of decay to stave of decay with better methods that band aid over the decay.

If RW was serious about helping the Church at large, and understood the problem of the Church at large, he would be writing a book about the centrality of the Atonement. That's where the tenor needs to be.

If I was a modern-day John Calvin worried about idolatry and how I could really Reform people back to getting some balance in Churches today then I would temporarily outlaw all bright ideas to growth and dynamism for a decade. Just like medieval Christians were addicted to statues and stained-glass windows and caused them to slip back into old patterns of idolatry, the modern Church almost needs a diet of methods for a while to start focusing on the Gospel to get it back into some sort of balance.

In the PDL, Rick Warren states that the biggest problem in modern Evangelicalism is that Christians aren't serving enough. BAH! The problem is the Gospel, lack of service is a symptom. Rick Warren only continues to exacerbate the symptoms by writing more books that take up time that ought to be focused on the REAL problem.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 7, 2005)

> The problem is the Gospel, lack of service is a symptom



Exactly!

At length what ends up happening in any church or nation of churches in which the Gospel is "lost" among moralism and law only (read reduced law as if we can do it) ,will worship, emotionalism, or other similar approaches is the development of two Christians. The highly successful self deceived who look down upon the others condescendingly. And group two the despairing who in some cases are driven to even suicidal thoughts if not actions. This is inevitable when the old Adam is fed and begins to afresh think he is pulling it off, especially if we say it is empowered by grace. The mask of hypocrisy comes on and suddenly we are not a group of mutual sinners under grace but the successful Christian versus the unsuccessful Christian if he/she is a Christian at all. 

This fundamental bi-level Christianity happens in every single case of sans Gospel. Jugdmental behaior begins as the clicks develop and then subtle whisperings ensue, "Well so and so doesn't come often enough on Wednesday nights and he/she doesn't study as much as 'our group'". Or, "So and so does do this or that" with the implication "like we do". Good works over time become a narrow list (which proves works are being glorified and not the Gospel), NEVER given in Scripture and if you don't hit the list, well maybe your not a good/spiritual or Christian at all. I've seen it every single time. And I've been that good works lawyer myself in the past.

At the end of the day the battle never really changes in ANY generation, it is a constant battle for the Gospel.

A co-worker friend of mine whom I've spoken the Gospel to several times and happens to be a muslem one time told me, "We believe that Jesus is a good teacher from God too." What in the end is the difference between that and what is behind "WWJD"? Substantially, nothing at all.

I never tire of this quote from Machen its like a breath of fresh air and power for the next day of struggles, "What I need first is not exhortation but a Gospel. Not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That's the only question I have of you. I know your exhortations, they will not help me. But if anything has been done to save me will you just tell me the facts."

We have to be aware, keenly aware, that due to our fallen Adam in us that the number ONE eisogetic idea that we have the strongest tendancy to bring to the Sacred text is our old man's desire for law/works/fruit whereby we may in some part justify and sanctify ourselves. Our blindness to our own "glory" is our greatest hinderance in reading and grasping Scripture. Or as Christ said, "You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it is these that continually bear witness of Me."

L


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 8, 2005)

No - the problem is that we have forgotten that we have kindred out there with different measures of faith and that the church is like a great banquet.

At the banquet you have infants, children and adults.

If you only provide rich meat, the infants starve and the children grow tired of the plainess.

The adults are happy, because they know the value and rarity of the rich meat.

If you want to draw the infants and children in Christ to the banquet, you must prepare a table for them. (Feed my sheep!)

Knowledge of God cannot be consumed in one great bite - we must have charity to those whom the Lord has appointed to set the table and feed the sheep "pure spiritual milk" ...and prepare them to become adults in Christ.

But if you only set the table for adults...


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 8, 2005)

I know this is not a perfect analogy, but when the Apostle Paul was dispensing "spiritual milk" to the people of Corinth, I wonder what that looked and sounded like. What do you think he was talking? Marriage? Family? Work ethics? "Witnessing"? Small groups? Programs? Community outreach opportunities? (Now which of those is bad? None of them, but that still wasn't his message, I'm sure.)

And the rebuttal is: "Yes, Paul certainly WAS talking those things!"

To which I respond: "Aha, but those things came AFTER the Gospel." 

And the Gospel is not, "Who ever is having problems right now, come up front after the service and have a "prayer team member" pray with you. And if you have not received Christ yet, they'll help you do that, too!"

Nor is it, "If you'd like to begin a personal relationship with Jesus, you can do so now by coming up front and putting Jesus on the throne of your life!"

Without a firm foundation of Christ in his saving office, those things are more "rearranging of the flesh," as one of my friends says.

I bet it was a whole lot different than what we usually call "spiritual milk" in our day and age. Our idea of "milk" is something like, "Hey, lets have a puppet show, and then when people are in a habit of coming, we'll start talking more about the deep things of God!"

Or- "Let's keep the message on works and techniques, and when someone wants to "get deep", they can study on their own or join one of our small groups."

What I rarely see happening is Christ being "placarded" in front of the whole congregation (through preaching), just as Moses lifted up the snake on the pole, so that all men will have to look to Him to be saved.

Paul told the Galatians that "before their very eyes Christ was portrayed as crucified." That means he preached the cross so much, and with so much vigor, that is was actually as if those hearing the message were at the foot of the cross themselves!

It seems messages these days are all devoid of the faith that says, "If I preach Christ, then the Holy Spirit will annoint the message to men's hearts, and He will by all means save some!"

The message used to be "foolishness to those that are perishing." It seems in our day and age that it is also "foolishness to those that are being 'saved'."

Why so much emphasis on the seeker, and not on the One being sought? If only Christ were presented in a way that made the whole congregation fall down and say, "What must we do to be saved???" The message is so diluted that there is no "saving" necessary, only "helping". The only time people fall down in worship is if the music is so good that after having their arms in the air, their head tilted back, and their eyes closed for so long that they become off balance.

I have no doubt that PDL and other seeker sensitive movements are successful in building large numbers. My only question is, large numbers of what? 

I remember one time the president of the SBC said, "What you attract people with, you keep them with!" 

Boy, what I rant I went on.... Sorry about all that... but most of it is probably true! (and yes, it saddens me)


----------



## crhoades (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> No - the problem is that we have forgotten that we have kindred out there with different measures of faith and that the church is like a great banquet.
> 
> At the banquet you have infants, children and adults.
> ...



That's why the divines created a Shorter and a Larger Catechism. 

and lest I forget...as far as worship being center...a Directory for Public and Private Worship... 

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## gwine (Dec 8, 2005)

> The only time people fall down in worship is if the music is so good that after having their arms in the air, their head tilted back, and their eyes closed for so long that they become off balance.



 but, as you said, sad.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 8, 2005)

I think ya'll are blinding yourselves with your biases, pre-conceptions and legalistic attitudes (one might even suggest arrogance) and painting with too broad a stroke.

You condemn in the aggregate without extending charity to your kindred.

I still love ya'll, though! 

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## crhoades (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I think ya'll are blinding yourselves with your biases, pre-conceptions and legalistic attitudes (one might even suggest arrogance) and painting with too broad a stroke.
> 
> You condemn in the aggregate without extending charity to your kindred.
> ...



 When you say "I think ya'll are..." and then say, "you condemn in the aggregate without..." 

Isn't that doing exactly what you're condemning? I'm not sure if you meant me as an aggregate or a kindred.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 8, 2005)

Actually - I meant the folks participating in the discussion - I may have been unecessarily harsh, but I am passionate about not closing off the Elect from fellowship and fashioning worship pleasing to God, yet edifying to the body - all the body.

I appreciate the scholarly, Godly and passionate folk here, but I think that sometimes "knowledge puffs up" and builds in us a sense that we have some exclusive right to judge.

In this sense, I am not judging the aggregate of the Puritan board, nor the practitioners of the historic faith, I am simply pleading for love and a non-exclusionary sense of charity that I have not seen here for kindred servants.

I am certainly not trying to set myself up as a PDL/RW apologist, just a brother that exults in the Reformed faith and hopeful that this could be a platform to exhibit ourselves as co-workers in this harvest - potentially as the spiritual adults preparing a banquet for the Elect infants and children in Christ, not the Pharaseical (sp?) removers of Christian Liberty.

"His yoke is easy, His burden is light"

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Hmmm ... this coming on a Reformed list. Last time I checked Reformed pastors and academics were no slouches when it came to writing a multitude of books on all sorts of subjects. And not to mention all those conferences ... PCRT, CVCRT, Greenville, WTS, ... the list is almost endless. E.g., the Evangel Reformed Conference 2005: "What is Reformed Worship?" Do we really need yet another conference on Reformed Worship when we could be *doing worship*?


----------



## Robin (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> "His yoke is easy, His burden is light"
> [Edited on 12-8-2005 by jdlongmire]



 Precisely, the point, JD!

Adding ANYTHING to the Gospel (including worship techniques) is another gospel, deceiving the lost and/or burdening and tyranizing the flock -- which is NO gospel at all.

Robin


----------



## Robin (Dec 8, 2005)

Saddleback's worship director, David Currie writes to another worship leader, attending SB worship seminars, about the mystic Evelyn Underhill:

Ken,

Great contribution! I just finished reading Underhill´s book and found her core definition ("œtotal adoring response") compelling as well. God always takes the initiative in worship and should get the first word. What do you think Underhill would make of current trends in worship? What else might she add to our conversation, especially since she had a fairly high regard for historic liturgical forms? Any of the rest of you find her work helpful?

You also further unpacked the "œwhole person" part of my definition and provided some greater focus for the attitude/expression element that Tim raised. What other kinds of actions are involved in healthy, Biblical worship?

Peace in Christ, 
Dave


Amazon's Book Review of Evelyn Underhill's book "The Spiritual Life":

An uplifting description of the pursuit of the spiritual life, written by one of the greatest mystics of the 20th century, who describes not only the spiritual state of communing with God but also the state of cooperating with God!

About the Author
Evelyn Underhill, an English poet and mystic, was the 20th century's most authoritative voice on mysticism. She defined clearly and succinctly the importance of mysticism as an underlying foundation of any religious or spiritual practice.

Source: http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/WorshipCommunity/ImplementingPD/defining_discussion.htm

Ah, but, let's remember, Mr. Currie is still working on his "working definition" of Christian worship... 'er PD worship.

Btw, I'm sure both these gentlemen really love Jesus...I wonder which Jesus, though????

r.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 8, 2005)

Robin - "compelling" does not mean - "and now I shall discard my tenents of worship:

David Currie's Working Definition

"œBiblical worship occurs when the whole Word of God guides 
the whole person together with the whole people of God into the full 
presence of the Father, in full union with the Son, 
through the full power of the Holy Spirit." 

for this person's principles."

Robin - you hate the PDL method so much that you are utilizing methods I have seen Atheist/Skeptics use to undermine faith and demonize Christianity- you are decontextualizing to build your argument, as well as hyper-accentuating anything you could perceive as error...

Go review Augustine and Calvin with the same critical eye - I am sure you could find plenty to criticise...

Why not go contribute if you have something to add?

Maybe help direct the discussion?

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Robin (Dec 8, 2005)

To methods, JD, I agree I do use one - it is this:

Ephesians 5:10-11

(context: Walk in Love)

...and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead *expose* them. 



Btw, all my posts are linked to source docs, accountable and rightly represented in context.

r.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 8, 2005)

mms://pdav.purposedriven.com/videos/Exp_Salvation_low.wmv

from here - http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/Home.htm

I wonder how many folk will see this - I just watched it and was blessed - if this is not winsome expository preaching of the Gospel, then I just don't know what is.

Solus Christus!

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 8, 2005)

> Knowledge of God cannot be consumed in one great bite - we must have charity to those whom the Lord has appointed to set the table and feed the sheep "pure spiritual milk" ...and prepare them to become adults in Christ.


What is milk? It is the Gospel. That's all I'm asking the focus be on. Too much about methods, not enough about Christ.

I'm on the other side of the world so it's difficult to interact as much in the daily discussions. I would have preferred to respond earlier.

If you read the tenor of my posts I am not concerned about RW's Church but the influence his teaching has on other Churches. The effect of a book like PDL and others is to give more method to a method-craving Church that no longer preaches milk.

Also, it is true religion to take care of the poor, sick, and suffering. But it is also civic virtue if not rooted in the Gospel. There are Roman Catholic ministries that outstrip Rick Warren's efforts by a wide margin - Catholic Charities comes to mind.

You seem to believe you have some sort of charitable view of things that the rest of us are lacking. I attend a Southern Baptist Church right now precisely because I have a heart for the Christians here - Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Canadian, and American. I teach Bible Study to them and have been teaching them Galatians. To see their hearts warmed because somebody has finally been giving them the milk they have craved for years is truly edifying to me. To them, the Gospel has been "Jesus came to be my example..." and little else.

Try to understand better the substance of the criticism and you would realize you're arguing against the necessity to make the Gospel central _first_ before moving on to meat. The meat is wisdom that flows out of a heart transformed and matured by the Word of God and the Church.

I won't dispute the issue that some Reformed people get needlessly caught up in being punctillious about certain issues. The Gospel is one area where I become strident and uncompromising over however.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> What is milk? It is the Gospel. That's all I'm asking the focus be on. Too much about methods, not enough about Christ.



Exactly right. The problem with PDL and its ilk is precisely that it has not even gotten the "milk" right . . . I do not believe anyone here has been criticising PDL in regards to the more complex doctrines of the faith. The influence of PDL is troubling because it obscures the true spiritual "milk ", the Gospel of Christ.

PDL is not spiritual milk. PDL does not present the ABC's of the Christian faith. So any charge that we criticise PDL out of intellectual pride is simply unfounded. We criticise PDL not because it is too basic and elementary, but because it _pushes aside_ and misrepresents many of the basic and elementary truths needed for salvation. We criticise not because it speaks in a simple language, but because what it is saying in that simple language is often wrong and misleading.

Spiritual milk is what we find in the catechisms, not in PDL.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2005)

> ...you would realize you're arguing against the necessity to make the Gospel central first before moving on to meat. The meat is wisdom that flows out of a heart transformed and matured by the Word of God and the Church.
> 
> I won't dispute the issue that some Reformed people get needlessly caught up in being punctillious about certain issues. The Gospel is one area where I become strident and uncompromising over however.



And we should not compromise the Gospel - Not arguing against that at all - I would consider the centrality of the Gospel the foudation of the church, too - my point is - I argue that RW does, too (take a look at the links I published, if you have the time) and PDL is a good method to begin the process - a good primer - I actually thought the PDL book was Basic Reformed Theology Principles 101 - a good way to reintroduce the "easy believism" crowd to the tenets of the Reformed faith and Biblical worship with an eye toward deeper truth.

Isn't the Reformed faith all about methods? creeds, catechism, confessions...those are all methods to understand God and grow in knowledge and faith - I am asking for consideration for the folks that have not the measure of faith to comprehend and digest these things - they still need to be nurtured and edified - I think innovation in these areas can honor the Master Innovator.

You know as well as I do that not all will progress to deeper levels of the faith through knowledge - some will always sup the milk - the basics of the Gospel, fellowship and worship without moving up and onward in maturity - why seperate ourselves from these children and fellowship with them through our harsh judgementalism?

I am not suggesting that I have any merit over anyone - I am trying to frame the conversation for discussion, it just seems the bias is so strong, it is hard to genuinely and charitably discuss the potential merits of the PD movement and how it may be leveraged to deepen the knowledge of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

When every step is met with the harshest of condemnations and strident rebuttals, it is hard to see the charity...



> Romans 15
> 
> 1We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.



When I saw your criticism and plan to oppose your pastor's decision to utilize the curriculum, I was interested in why you did not consider this a great opportunity in your teaching ministry to incorporate some of the "meatier" elements for the potential flock. You could be the voice and a guide to Semper Reformanda! 

Why not market ourselves as "Purpose Driven Deluxe" or something?

"When you are ready to go to the next level in the pursuit of God knowledge and His purpose."

....................................................................................................................

BTW: Semper, are you there as a posted person, or are you there as a missionary?

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 9, 2005)

JD,
I appreciate your posts. You have been arguing in a very charitable way that is furthering the discussion and helping to clarify the issues.

One comment/question I have for you is, and maybe I missed it, but I never heard you speak directly to the issue of Warren's "gospel" on page 58 of his book that I posted previously.

Yes, I did view the link (I had also already seen that earlier), and I won't offer any criticism of his gospel presentation (and I'm not implying that any is warranted).

Also, if the book is NOT about "methods", then why, as I addressed earlier, has Warren said the book has been so "helpful" to Muslims, Jews, etc?

Please answer these two points. I am seriously interested in another way to view these, in case I am being too critical.


If Warren is truly "starting with the Gospel" and his methods build on that, then why do other faiths find the book enlightening? And why would Warren, on national TV, try to make a case for this instead of a case for Christ?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2005)

Thanks - I appreciate the tone you have set, as well...

Is this the post?



> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> This part concerns me:
> 
> 
> ...



edited for tidiness - 

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 9, 2005)

No, sorry, it wasn't in this thread at all (I got confused)

I clipped this from the appropriate thread and here it is:


"Here's the "Gospel" by Rick Warren, quoted from page 58.

"Second, receive. Receive Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. Receive his forgiveness for your sins. Receive his Spirit, who will be able to give you the power to fulfill your life purpose. The Bible says, "Whoever accepts and trusts the Son gets in on everything, life complete and forever!"

"Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: "Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you." Go ahead.

If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God! You are now ready to discover and start living God's purpose for your life. I urge you to tell someone about it. "

...end of book quote


Also, his "Hula Worship" that goes on at his church. And number three, he seems to be compromising when he gets on TV by getting the heat totally off his back that he's preaching an exclusive message as he says that both Jewish and Muslim folks are also getting a lot out of the book (and its implied that he means without wavering in their own beliefs)."


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2005)

So - let me make sure I understand your areas of focus:

1. This is too simplistic or an heretical exposition of the Gospel call?

2. Hula worship - inappropiate expression of worship - not enough gravitas?

3. The concepts in PDL should emphasize exclusivity - no practical applications of timeless truth or winsome exposition?

Seeking to understand...

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 9, 2005)

Hmmm.... the way you phrased your questions has got me thinking a little more deeply about these points... but on first glance, yes, the way you phrased it does seem to codify what I'm getting at.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say, "no practical applications to timeless truth..."


This part about the Gospel is the main focus and I would like to concentrate on that:

"Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: "Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you." Go ahead. If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!"

This part I have a problem with. It wouldn't be so bad if it was at the end of some glorious exposition of the person and work of Jesus Christ. At least then it would be carrying with it some substance. But here its at the end of a chapter, where the chapter was on "how can I bring glory to God?" It starts with the premise that you're "receiving Jesus" so that you can then accomplish the greater "purpose" God has for you, which is bringing Him glory. When God's glory is not found FIRST at the foot of the cross for FORGIVENESS, then it misses our purpose in Christ Jesus. For us as fallen creatures, what could be more "glorious" than being reconciled to a Most Holy and Perfect God, through the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ, one most perfect and holy himself. The book nowhere truly gives you this sense. We are nowhere in these pages found to be vile, found to be wretches in his sight... who DESPARATELY need a Saviour! Where's the Fall? Really, where is the Fall of mankind in this book? Our alienation from God is something much different than just "now we're not behavin so good anymore."
Maybe I missed it, but could you show me at least a few paragraphs in a row where our fallen nature is discussed?

"Now, is this a theology textbook? Does he have to cover every minute point of doctrine in order for it to be sound?"

No, absolutely not. But neither does he need to be "passing out Christ" to every "purposeless" person that reads up to page 58!
Don't offer Christ as a solution to a mini-problem. If you're not going to "cut us to the heart", then leave the shed blood out of it!

People don't just "get convicted" that they're not "living their whole lives for the glory of God", and then repent of that by "receiving Jesus" so that they can get in step with their true purpose and begin living it out. That's not what its all about. Sure Warren has us repenting of our sin, it just seems to be the sin of "not fulfilling our purpose" that is driving every aspect of his exposition.

I just noticed this: 
look at the sentence immediately following his "Receive... and Welcome to the family" line...
*"You are now ready to discover and start living God's purpose for your life."*

If he didn't really mean that Christ's blood is for your lack of fulfilling your purpose, then he wouldn't have hammered that last point home. We HAVE to read this man in context, its only fair.

And even when he talks about "living your lives for God's glory", he doesn't exposit those attributes of God that are worthy to be worshiped, but just makes "worship" itself an inherently good act that everyone should do.

When he talks about forgiveness he says, "If you want to know how much you matter to God, look to Christ with his arms stretched out on the cross, saying, "I love you this much! I'd rather die than live without you!"" pg 79

So you can take snippets of the book here and there and say, "Oh yeah, Warren mentions sin" or "He talks about God's glory, or God's will, or Jesus, etc"
But when you put the whole thing in context, and read large chunks of it together, one begins to see just how cheesy and sappy it is.

Now do you understand a little better where I'm coming from? Does everyone agree/disagree....? I'd love to find out that I'm just being overly critical and hyper polemic, because if I am, then I'm probably not understanding the Gospel the way I should, and I definitely want to get THAT right.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2005)

> Sure Warren has us repenting of our sin, it just seems to be the sin of "not fulfilling our purpose" that is driving every aspect of his exposition.



So:

1. Is he omitting salient, relevant and critical items from the Gospel call in this book?

(BTW: did you listen to the Gospel presentation on the site? I thought it was fairly complete...from our inability to save ourselves to the substitutionary atonement of Christ - all in a winsome manner in lay terms)

or



> one begins to see just how cheesy and sappy it is.



2: His method is distasteful to you?

(BTW2: Look at page 55 top 2 paragraphs)

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 9, 2005)

Thanks for responding, JD!

Yes, I would say he is omitting crucial information.

And is his method distasteful?
I'm not sure if I'd put it like that. And don't read too much into the words "cheesy" and "sappy", they weren't the main thrust of my message, but did in a way describe the overall tenor that I got from the book.

So what do you think of those concerns above; that taken in context he is making our "lack of fulfilling our purpose" the central theme of the Gospel? Instead of truly putting emphasis on Christ as the basis for all we do as Christians, he's made it "purpose." "Purpose" is driving his book. He has a VERY appropriate title!



Can you see this in his writings now that its been pointed out, or am I offbase with this? Thanks for dialoging!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2005)

Well - I would like to respond with a question:

What *is* the chief end (purpose) of Man?

...and isn't that the culmination of the area he extends the Gospel call?

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 10, 2005)

Sorry it took me so long to respond...

I see where you're going with your question, and yes, I agree that glorifying God is the chief end of man.
But I guess it depends on what we're glorifying Him about, and this is where I think man's "purpose" has trumped "glorifying God", even IF Warren has tried to verbally equate the two somewhat.

Again, it has to do with what we're glorifying God about, and WHY we're glorifying Him, and I contend that the main issue with fallen mankind is God's mercy and grace to us through the shed blood of Jesus. Warren seems to be talking "fulfillment" in our lives moreso than gratitude over Christ, and I don't think you can properly make a case that he's not.

If you were to ask someone off the street who has read Warren's book, "What did you get out of it? What do you think the main thrust of his message is? Tell me about "glorifying God"?"

I could be wrong, but I'm willing to wager 90% of those people, if they made reference to Jesus at all, would NOT be talking about the person and work of Christ, but about their OWN works, and how now they're "really going to be fulfilling their purpose in life!" And THIS, by the way, is probably why the book can be so "helpful" to Muslims and Jews.

Actually, you know what... I'M going to do my own study, with people who are already Christians who have read the book! I think this is a very fair way to tell how much emphasis their "being redeemed" was given in the book. (Without which their basis for glorifying God is greaty skewed)
If you have any suggestions as to what questions to ask, I'd appreciate the input.

Now I can tell I'm really "pushing the envelope" on my own knowledge of PDL, and I think its best if I don't go any further with answering questions relating to the contents of the book. To do so would I'm sure bring me into slander as I comment in ignorance about things I should not be speaking about. Maybe we can just leave the issues on the table as much as we've highlighted them here in this thread and concentrate on the points that have already been raised.

If we try to talk too much about everything, then we're going to have to get into his dreadful (almost to the point of being dishonest) misrepresentation of Scripture... and I'd rather not even go there.

So, what do you think of the Gospel as presented in PDL? (not the video link, which I saw and have no contention with)
And can you REALLY glorify God without the Gospel? (and I mean in a way different than how even the reprobate in Hell glorify God)


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 11, 2005)

To set forth trust in "new methods" rather than the Gospel in simple Word & Sacrament is at the heart of it idolatry. To defend against this is not legalism but defending AGAINST true legalism and works salvation under any label. The so called "easier/milk" methods in the end are a poisonous anti-gospel spinkled with "gopel-like" language. This is what we must see. Again it is not the impuning of a man's motives, but the correction of the teaching that in reality leads away from Christ in the end.

The difference between today's false gospel and the true Gospel in its communication:

Situation #1 the true Gospel delivered (Here faith is biblical and sheer passive trusting in all of one's life):

NOTE: Here there is pure proclamation as in "Good News".
Pastor: Christ has died for your sins, all of them including your sin nature and He is all your righteousness past, present and future - thought, word and deed.

Hearer: You mean that even if I don't clean up my life I'm totally forgiven?

Pastor: Yes, indeed you cannot clean up your life else you will not be saved, God reconciled us in Christ "while we were yet sinners" and "dead in sins and trespasses". You can come in no other way.
Hearer: No conditions, nothing for me to do. Do I need to be righteous?

Pastor: No or if you think so "may your money perish with you that you think you could purchase the gift of God."

Hearer: So there are literally no conditions ever past, present or future - by thought, word or deed, strength or sincerity of repentance or faith?

Pastor: None, as a matter of fact if you set forth conditions and attempt to do something it is not grace nor can you have it. God's gift is received by the hand that is empty and indeed dead and has no strength itself to grasp. It is passively received freely and without conditions, thus it is grace and never works. Pure utter, absolute and naked trust, that is to be convinced and rest in Christ alone and that alone is true faith/trust. It is in a word proclaimed to you to cause faith/trust, "This Christ has done FOR YOU specifically." It is an announcement that has come your way. It is literally God saying and announcing, "I forgive you for Christ's sake". Without pre-existing repentance or faith, for you cannot cause these. The announcement IS the voice of God stating a fact that cannot be a lie or false.

Hearer: If God has said it then how can I not believe!

Pastor: Amen, indeed salvation has come to this household.
Situation #2 the false gospel delivered (Here faith is false and of the devil and defined as obedient faith):

NOTE: Here there is pure works with "gospel like language" interspersed.

Pastor: Christ has died for your sins, all of them including your sin nature and He is all your righteousness past, present and future - thought, word and deed. You must repent and you must believe.

Hearer: Pastor I want to be saved and baptized.

Pastor: Are you born again?

Hearer: I'm not sure how can I know?

Pastor: Have you shown forth the fruits of faith that prove you are of the faith?

Hearer: I don't know I still sin and very much feel the draw and indeed fall into sin.

Pastor: If you do not repent you will go to hell.

Hearer: I do repent but how can I know if it is enough?

Pastor: Have you repented of all your sins?

Hearer: How do I know, I can't seem to shake it?

Pastor: You do not desire to sin anymore do you?

Hearer: Yes but no, I both desire to be righteous but also have desires toward my sins. How can I know.

Pastor: You must repent and show forth righteousness in a changed life.

Hearer: So I must repent first before I can be saved and trust in Christ and be baptized into Him?

Pastor: You must have fruits first or I can never baptize you, fruits and repentance and faith. (Implication communicated): Then, this gospel is yours and you may then have peace.)

The first situation is the true Gospel and is delivered continually over the life of the church and Christians and not just initial conversion. The pastor is preaching Christ and truly calling his people. The second is a false gospel and indeed not Christ or His Gospel at all. This pastor is idol worshipping and not trusting the Word of God though he thinks he is. The second breeds false faith, self-righteousness and despair its author is the devil though it seasons its communication with Christian and gospel-like language. 

When the speech type or form of the language is such that it is command and not proclamation it is definitively not the Gospel, that is the Good NEWS of Christ. It matters little what specific words are used to form the speech type.

There is this difference in the type of speech between the two: 
The first is proclamation and announcement which in turn causes true faith that is true trust and not defined by obedience but upon the convincing and trusting of the announcement and proclamation - that is to literally trust the Word of God delivered. From this arises without effort and naturally the fruits of such true faith for this faith is real saving faith and being called by God. At length the fruits of faith here will show forth in true love regardless of the outward appearance for all is giving forth from the Gospel of Christ. This faith over flows, even imperfectly among mutual sinners. For all see themselves, looking at the cross via the true Gospel, as nothing more than sinners under grace. All gifts and works are good and mutually appreciated and revered.

The second, more common today in many churches, is command and a "to do" something and obedience couched as a "faith" - that is a faith defined by obedience. From this arises only further wrath and hell. The works arising from this fallen devil's faith are sheer hypocrisy and self indulgent works disguised as grace and faith. This false faith deceives or despairs and is indeed not faith at all. At length the fruits of this faith here will show forth in outward appearance as clean and good but in reality and inwardly strife and hatred will subtly ensue. Differing levels of "christians" will arise in the form of the more "spiritual" Christian verses the "less" spiritual Christian. Some will judge and doubt another's true faith forbidden in Scripture. There will be interest in what a persons leisure life is while works become diminished in what they are. Works at length will become restrictively confined to just a few and mainly those within what is called the "ministry". Lay vocation will at length be despised or at leased looked down upon as lesser than doing the "ministry". Men will raise themselves up in their gifts and talk about other's gifts as lesser or those less engaged or less spiritual or less involved in the "official ministry" will at length be despised and doubted and looked down upon.

What PDL gives as "gospel" with one hand it immediatelly takes back with the other: "Christ alone save (Gospel given), If you prayed for this with sincerity you will be saved (gospel re-snatched away)

Here's a great discussion that analyzes PDL in 2003: I lost the link, sorry about the length:

-Ldh



> Issues, Etc.
> Broadcast Transcript
> with
> Radio Host Todd Wilken
> ...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 11, 2005)

Whew! what a lengthy post!

Anyway to summarize the content a bit?

I think I see a couple of themes:

1. RW proposes works redemption

2. RW is a papist

Are there more?



> RW - "Now what I love to do is to teach theology to non-believers without ever telling them it is theology and without ever using theology terms. For instance, I once did an eight-week series on sanctification and never used the term. I did a four-week series on the incarnation and never used the term. I did a twelve-week series on the attributes of God "” the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence "” and never used the terms. I just called it "Getting to Know God." I love to teach theology to non-believers without them knowing what it is; I find that a challenge. So it´s a good balance."


----------



## Robin (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Whew! what a lengthy post!
> 
> Anyway to summarize the content a bit?
> ...



Hi JD...

Other traits RW bears is gnostic/mystic. He regularly claims things like: "God told me to tell you...." and/or speaks "for" God....which, among other things, is the sin of presumption.

Obviously, this is a huge problem since the claim cannot be made accountable, putting RW's proclamation on a par with Holy Scripture (though, I'd doubt RW would agree it was.) The point is, RW claims one thing then turns right around and does the opposite. I think Scripture refers to this as "double-minded." It is also common knowledge that anyone questioning his claims or PDL is put-down, vilified; shunned. The PDC seminars teach how to "deal" with dissenters. (Not all dissenters are "jealous" of his success....some are genuinely discerning problems.)



r.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 12, 2005)

> Whew! what a lengthy post!



LOL, I thought so to after I posted it. But like a dunderhead I lost the link but still had the text. It was so good in spelling it out that I thought it worth posting. Tough to read that much on cpu, I do it all day at my job and it gives me a headache if I can't get a hard copy!

L


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Whew! what a lengthy post!
> 
> Anyway to summarize the content a bit?
> ...


Aw shucks JD. Nobody can summarize a long dialogue about the dangers of R.W.'s approach by three learned men like you can. So I'm supposed to get as much out of your pithy quote from Rick Warren as I am from the dialogue that you crassly summarize with utter disdain for their concerns?

You make it increasingly clear that there is little reason to dialogue with you. You accuse us of a lack of charity when many of us have seen the fruits of PDL firsthand in many Churches and then you provide an unwarranted caricature of other's reasonable criticisms. Physician, heal thyself.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 12, 2005)

Ow, brother - I am genuinely hurt...

I actually was just trying to get a few simple discussion topics out of a HUGE post that was very disdainful and one-sided.

The RW quote was simply to highlight what I consider the PDL does - present theologic and doctrinal principles distilled into lay language.

Again - sorry if I offended.

I think I'll go back and debate Atheists - at least when they insult me I understand from where it originates.

- pax vobiscum -

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ow, brother - I am genuinely hurt...
> 
> I actually was just trying to get a few simple discussion topics out of a HUGE post that was very disdainful and one-sided.
> ...


I need no apology. It's two Lutheran Pastors and a Professor of Theology that Larry cited that you should contact. It is their writing that you misrepresent very uncharitably.

If you cannot understand how you have and your only choice is to interact with Atheists then that is unfortunate as well.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 12, 2005)

no - my choice is to interact with those who may be Elect and present the Gospel in a winsome way, so that they respond to the call or have the seeds of the Gospel planted.

Again, your view of my intent is most uncharitable. These gentlemen - learned as they may be - invited no counterpoint and mocked a brother very uncharitably themselves.

The length of the post made detailed rebuttal very problematic - I highlighted a couple of points to invite additional discussion - and perhaps be corrected in my observations - yet you post and cut me with your cynical, mocking, judgemental and caustic comment - not in a loving manner at all...much in the manner of my opponents on the atheist board.

Examine yourself, brother.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 12, 2005)

Apparently we are done here. Take some cool off time.


----------

