First, for more info on Purpose-Driven (specifically) you might read:
“Redefining Christianity”, by Bob DeWaay. He also has a “Purpose Driven Discernment Tool” which puts the verses from the PDL (and the translation they come from) side-by-side with the NASB (though you'll have to read the wider contexts for some of the things). There's also audio-messages there, which might be helpful to anyone interested. See cicministry.org and there's a link on the front page to this (usu. lower-right).
---
Second, I can come off hard, but don't mean to...and so if anything seems like that, sorry, I only mean to answerr Valley and discuss his own reply, and a few other things. If I'm edgy I'm glad it says “Iron Sharpens Iron”, so PM me if I do come off wrong so I can examine it and see if it's true.
Guess what? The GC* leadership was still secretive, authoritarian, and psychologically manipulative. So, in short, history does not support your theory.
Good to know you're in agreement on this with many here. However the parallels are still there, and a change for separatists to “embracism” (does anyone know a better term?) doesn't mean things are good/bad/worse, but rather that it must be evaluated.
Interestingly, though, I've heard from pastors around the U. S. getting contacts by very upset Christians being thrown-out of their churches for challenging worldly methodology paradigm-shifts (which I've noticed many of you guys have talked about the "change" that happened) where the pastors accused them of being unsubmissive and slanderous towards themselves (sound familiar).
What sounds familiar to me is accusations of "worldliness" that have much more to do with cultural prejudices than sin. The Church universal has always confronted the problem of communicating the Christian message in hostile, alien cultures. The apologies of the first church fathers, including Paul, used Greek philosophical vocabulary and argument to communicate the message of the God of Israel. They did this by studying the classical Greek philosophers (primarily Plato) and exploiting commonalities between Greek philosophy and the Christian message. Did the gentile Greeks seek the Good? Well, so did Christians, but the Good wasn't logos (Greek for principle or idea) but Logos (Jesus, the principle personified). The author of John took a common Greek cultural concept and changed its meaning while maintaining the positive associations Greeks had with "logos". Yet, if you look at Plato's complete works, there is much that is antithetical to Christian ethics; for example, the Symposium has long sections devoted to the benefits of sexual relationships between men and adolescent boys. Was John then worldly by using the term "Logos", because pederast Athenian philosophers used it?
They might use the words the Greeks used, but not Greek “culture” and its message to show, commonalities, but its futility; and the very words, as you say, are used differently, whereas Seeker Sensitivity says “we need to speak like them so they can understand”, while Paul spoke with some of the same words...but not the same understanding! One of the dogmas of Church-Growth/Seeker Sensitive (and “Seeker Sensitive” IS Church Growth), is that on Mars Hill Paul was appealing to the Greeks with their own words, “building bridges”, whereas when you read carefully he's actually showing the futility of it; no wonder the word says the Carnal mind is futility, and also that it's enmity with God. “Seeker Sensitive” teaches we must find the beauty in culture and exploit it, Paul however shows the futility even in their own poetry, and yet says whenever the Gentiles do the things of the law it is a law unto themselves. When Churches are voting members out because they refuse to bind themselves from an OT covenant-oath which demands absolute submission to “elders/leaders” (though elders are the only leadership really mentioned in the NT, though a few nuances could be in order, and other “ministries” {services} are mentioned, but which are so much “leadership” like pastoring) even when the elders may err, when the Word says trust no man (see the resigned pastor's letter and that of the former DT leader from one of the GC churches on the gcmwarning page), when Paul commends that the Bereans checked everyday what he said against the scriptures (and probably not just references, but rather if he had twisted it or not) and called them noble for it, and when we're commanded to expose error (whether doctrine or practice) and especially among teachers/elders “publicly, that all may be edified”, yes, that's worldly, and persecution, and evil. These documents they demand people to sign contradict James 5:12 which warns not to swear “above all”...”so that you do not fall under condemnation”; but that's the exact intent: contradict us, and you're out. I think this is familiar to most here...and maybe not with some, but with many hear reading what they had to bear as testimony about what was wrong...they may'nt have been in error. Yet they were persecuted if they said anything. Paul says the scriptures are sufficient unto “every good work”, rather than just words to hear and thus we'd otherwise supposedly need to bring in Abercrombie representatives to teach us about culture? (GC does/did this)? Scripture says it's sufficient “unto every good work” but Rick Warren brags about his own reformation of “deeds not creeds”.
To explain the uses of philosophy by the church, church fathers used the story of Moses and the Israelites taking the treasures of the Egyptians with them on the exodus. This was an allegory for the use of pagan culture to explain the gospel. Just because pagan philosophy and culture had been used for ill, didn't mean the people of God couldn't appropriate parts of it for the good, but they had to do so knowingly and wisely.
Yes “wisely”, but like Paul to show its futility, and very carefully. I'm also weary of the “fathers”, though I appreciate much of their apologetic works, often many “fathers” were the ones teaching the flesh is bad and the spirit is good: some of them seemed to incorporate, not repudiate, those very greek philosophies they supposedly used “wisely”, and Paul is he that warned that after his departure grievous wolves would arise, not sparing the flock. Some of the “fathers” even allegorized scripture to the point of denying it, though Christ affirmed the writings of Moses. Thus I appreciate the “good” in their writings...but subject it back under scripture and throw-out the rest. If we want to talk about the fundiness of early GC too (anti-rock band etc. stuff) we could bring in Tertullian here, who wrote against “the unveilign of the virgins” and affirmed that despite the Greeks de-veiling the Church remained veiled “because it was the apostle's command”. Was this appealing to the culture? Actually it was contrary to it; and this was a true thing up until even recent history. Arguing for/against appropriating culture by using what the “fathers” said could go both ways. That's why I pointed-out the “law unto themselves” thing used by Pual because, again, he was using their culture against them, not for “bridges”: no wonder why he hated by Jews, Greeks, and etc., and chased, and imprisoned, and os on. He was that contentions little git who brought every thought “into subjection” to Christ. We must examine their own claims and thoughts by scripture, being 'noble-minded” as the Bereans, just as you or I should examine not only what the other says, but also that we say and think our selves! I like what God says “he that hath a dream, let him tell his dream; he that hath my word, let him preach it faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat”. For all the “programs” of Seeker Sensitive I notice...the people in them still seem worldly, and hungry (whether for carnal things, or the spiritual things only the spiritual man discerns, depending).
Bringing that forward into our time, instead of using Greek philosophy, the church growth movement appropriates the insights of capitalist culture about mass communication. You and I may disagree with the choices of Rick Warren et al. make in using the logic of marketing to spread the gospel, but the fact that marketing isn't found in the Bible doesn't make it per se impermissible as a tool used by the church to reach non-Christians, just as the Greek pagan origins of philosophy didn't make it illegitimate as a tool to explain Christian doctrine. What we can't forget, of course, is that Jesus is not a product to be sold, nor is salvation a matter of supply and demand; but most "seeker sensitive" churches will agree with that.
No, marketing is just that: about market; selling something. It is taking something and packaging it for appeal. Where we say we need say “Jesus will give you good lives” Jesus said “you will be persecuted for my sake”, “hated”, and etc...and what's more, the Church Growth Movement must twist scripture to do this. If one reads through Rick Warren's works one finds he's a MASTER at twisting scripture. And this is inexcusable when he shows he can exegete it correctly (did on Romans 12 in the Purpose Driven Life). Seeker Sensitive/Church Growth says “Jesus will give you love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control”, but doesn't tell you that scriptues use of those words is entirely different...or that it will be in the midst of persecution, while people say false things about you, lyaing, or that it's while they scourge you, or while they are like wolves...and you're sent as a sheep; or that it's while you mourn over your sin (and for that those persons “they shall be comforted”), but rejoice and exult in Christ, and have joy he's given though the world brings you none. Remove the seeker-unfriendly gospel, the doctrines of hell, God's anger and wrath, replace the Psalms that say God's hatred burns against sinners with “God love the sinner, hates the sin” (and yes God loves the sinner...but hatred/love aren't exclusive, and the action will show which one wins out, those who repent and believe God's love will be lavished upon forever...those who reject His son he will poor out his anger and vengeance in wrath, and laugh at and mock them in their torment, just as scripture says; He hates sin!
“Seeker Sensitive” is itself founded upon ignoring scripture that says “NONE SEEK God”, and when you said that Gentiles sought good (“Did the gentile Greeks seek the Good? Well, so did Christians”) scripture says “none seek good”. You are right to differentiate between Paul's use, and that of the Greek: but Seeker Sensitive doesn't, and it re-contextualizes the gospel for the world, whereas Paul appropriated terms and contextualized them into scriptures, like John, like Jude...he didn't utilize the words for appeal or intelligibility, the meanings were wholly different! Paul warns the gospel is a stumblingblock/offense, it is NOT appealing, and according to Jesus most take the wide road, and many who call him Lord, Lord will not enter the reign of heaven. Seeker sensitivity uses anything and everything very often, except the word, except for a source of anecdotes and proof texts. Seminal works say to use paraphrases, or to put away Bibles so believers aren't uncomfortable, and to be sensitive to unbelievers rather than Jesus Christ in worship and reading the Word (as Paul commands Timothy to do, and also to continue in sound doctrine despite when they will no longer bear it and gather teachers unto themselves to scratch their ears). The Church are those “called out”, and when you make “church” Mars Hill, rather than going there...you've forfeited your lampstand, and you are not called out. We aren't to be mean to visitors, of course, or not to accommodate them at all if they enter our assemblies (God says, after all, to be orderly, for instance, in the use of gifts)...but we must not seek to boil the frog or christianize them (“influence our culture”) rather than personally taking our time and preaching the gospel, and for that matter all messages should have Christ in them. And speaking of “separatism”, it's often a dirty word these days, and while there are many ridiculous examples often associated or a part of different teachings on it, it is the Word which says of the world “come out from among them, be separate, and touch not the unclean thing”, and of the “great harlot” (Rev 17) “come out from among her...”.
Seeker Sensitive mocks this, repudiates, and repeats “I'm not listening” as it covers its ears and shouts “blah blah blah 'STUPID FUNDIE'” so very often it's disheartening. (“gather unto themselves teachers to....”). Today, for instance, I hear those voices say “how ridiculous was it that they didn't even permit pianos” (for singing), but at one point in our history those were seen as bar-toys, and associated with many things, and despite people crying “legalists” the “liberty” we're granted is from sin, and we're told by Paul that if our “liberty” (as those who thought they were free to do anything) offends a brother we're to cease for their conscience; funny that Paul is so often misconstrued when he was in fact taking and twisting the words of the twisters. It's like those here who have said that alcohol is treated as a joke and evangelization tool...but all the partyers I know associate it with all bad things (and love them too), and it's sad to watch, for example, how many times I've seen Church groups light-up tobacco but all the smokers I know call it, truthfully without any argument or self-defense, a buzz, a drug! And I'm not arguing about tobacco here, not now, but making a point; GC often has people treat things like this as nothing when they may be around people that it's really offensive to, or someone they've invited who is a prolific drinker or smoker. I once lived in a dorm with GC gals who so freely imbibed and joked about alcohol and yet I found out later from non-believers in the dorms that they excused themselves in getting drunk because “the Christians do it [drink]”; it didn't even matter whether or not they [the Christians] were getting drunk, rather that they saw the Christians so haphazardly treating something that even the word constantly cautions us (but does not forbid) about, and excused themselves. Jesus says “you are the light of the world, a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid”, and he's not kidding. I never thought of it like this...until I ashamedly heard what had happened in this. I've been privy to more and more such circumstances ever since, especially as I've been around more and more unbelievers.
Then there's many other things. For example, what about all the people who grew up in bar-enviroments with drinking parents and know all the sinful elements in that? Yet GC has people going to the bar in their “liberty”; or what about those of us who were beaten mercilessly by alcoholics growing up? (Myself included). What witness is it to turn-on a sexually explicit and highly violent movie, or one which mocks Jesus and Blasphemes God, and invite others for “outreach”, HMM? Is this what Christ would rejoice in? If these are the prejudices you speak of...well, I hope not.
If it's just those kinds like “no drinking period”, or “instruments cannot be used with singing”, and etc...then no problem.
Pardon me, but they certainly did and do. It's just not as controversial.
I'm glad in your experience they did; here, though, even theft is just winked at. As long as it's “little”.
He also has been rebuked repeatedly for referring to women with dismissive, disrespectful language.
: ( Sorry to hear that, I'll have to check into it. Did you know his organization (Acts 29) now has a head member on-board with GCM?
In Matthew 5:22, Jesus warns about the hellish consequences of calling another "fool", not using s@#& or f&% in a sentence.
That doesn't change the scripture I cited, or that it's a command...or that Paul was inspired, and that that word isn't necessarily “obscene” though it might be shocking, whereas obscenity is also something in the OT they're commanded not to use, followed by “be holy”, and this might be what Paul is referring to, though he's even more broad.
In Phillipians 3:8 (NIV), Paul says: "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ". What the NIV primly translates as "rubbish" and the King James translates as "dung" is the Greek word skubalon, more accurately translated into colloquial English as "sh!t". My point is not to defend Driscoll's language, or attack his teaching about gender roles: my point is that your concern with language has more to do with traditional American views of social propriety than a central Christian teaching. Does that then make you a "friend of the world"? Are you "compromised"?
It does when it's for the sake of the hearers, and sometimes it's noted that Mark may very well have been less successful at gathering such a large congregation without the shock-jock tactics, which is a danger because some might attend for those. When he says (paraphrasing) “my church grew as kids chain-smoking outside came in to hear me preach on propitiation and about how Jesus was coming to kick their head in, and they better repent” it's not a problem...when he cusses it is; even unbelievers often see it as uncouth, though they may do it, and ESPECIALLY of Pastors.
Personally, it appears that GC's foundations...are not Christ or the gospel or anything good, but one error after another, with only limited moments of lukewarm and uncommitted "shows" of supposed repentance: but no action, just more subtlety.
Even if what you say is true (and I don't see how you could possibly know someone's inward motivation or "foundation"), didn't Jesus tell us not to judge? If you have grounds to dispute a specific teaching of GC*, or the negative result of it, do so; but a general claim about someone's "foundations" is out of line.
I wasn't talking about “inward motivation”. VERY often pastors excuse one another in GC* from things scripture commands to be excused by actually saying “I know his heart”, for that matter. Scripture says only God searches the heart. However the history and teachings and methods/methodology(/ies) used CAN be examined, and the fruit (words, not just deeds; and works, not just words: not exclusive of either) can be examined to inspect the foundations. When people are testifying to GC* and hardly to Christ...and when you examine them and find them narily able to speak the gospel, or giving one that's (even subtly) twisted...it's of MAJOR concern, and needs be examined. There are different scriptures pertaining to this, and several which I'd like to point people to not so that I can examine them, because I can't fully (though there are certain scriptures which tell us directly whether or not someone has Christ, and those signs that they don't) in most cases, there are some portions of scripture which tell each reader/hearer to “examine yourselves” in the light of what they're saying (1 John is one great example). And frankly I'm quite worried when I've sat around with people reading that or other portions of scripture like it, and the details are given, and the guy to my right (or girl) says “yep, that's me”...and then the next verses says “he has not Christ”.
GC appears to be nothing more than a "cultural phenomena" and not a movement of the spirit
I wasn't aware that the two things were mutually exclusive.
When the cultural phenomena is about engaging the world and transforming it, though Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, and the word says (and it does) “be separate” and calls its culture, minds, etc. “futility”, “enmity with God”, “foolishness”, and so on...and when the same tactics as activists who simply excite people to undermine their judgment and get them on board with their agenda are applied to rally a “church”, but Christ is not preached. or parts of the “whole counsel of God” are left out, or ...etc. then it's not the same thing. Christians worship God with their whole lives, gather round one another for love, and for that, not because they're given a mission statement and told to subject to it, or to scram. It's well noted that you can rally people around one another for a common cause...quite another thing than that Love as a spiritual fruit from simply being born anew by God's Spirit and sharing Christ indwelling these new creations loving one another, coming together daily (or whenever they can, like Acts, though hopefully not shirking responsibilities, either), and so on.
“GC” may be the phenomena, but probably not everyone in it, of course. I would like anyone elses's observations/discernment on this where it may be true or not.
This is what's happening in churches all over...as churches once again seem to be becoming the biggest persecuters of christians who're actually on fire for God and not just excited by charismatic pastors or those with the psycho-babble pre-packaged "do church this way" training and programs.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a mindless lemming, whereas you're "on fire for God". No one is requiring you to stay in a congregation where you think things are done the wrong way, but try not to destroy the leaders/other congregants on your way out. In my experience in non GC* churches, that's what causes "persecution", if there is any. In my present congregation, disagreements about worship music devolved into accusations about "worldliness" (contemporary music and media) and "authoritarianism" (following the church polity). The self-righteous posing on either side didn't help.
Say that about Athanasisus...poor majority being taught right doctrine and told to denounce arianism. And “music” is not worship...it's one facet, it *can* praise God and this is certainly worship, but you may praise God with your lips, and God may say “your hearts are far from me”. Oh, and the testimony I hear from many many many many many people over the years about the GC Church I'm at is “they had cool music”, not “they offended me with the gospel” or “they taught/fed/etc.”. Usually...these people leave. Oh, and current members sometimes complain that we no longer play the seeker-sensitive secular songs...but the current music is cool. Tell me, should I believe this is a congregation there to worship Christ?
Furthermore, every musician I've ever met...readily says music does matter: it can control emotion, brings highs and lows; medically it is much like a drug (to the mind), and more often the “contemporary” music is mindless repetition without any doctrinal value: those songs are what are often protested. It's like those worship songs that go “praise God...praise God...” but never actually say anything that's does actually praise him. Here's an example lyric from a song I really liked until...yesterday when I realize I was singing...
spread wide, in the aaaaa-rms of Chriiiiiist, is a love that covers sin”
Christ doesn't cover sin, he washes it away: and if he didn't we'd all be dead meat. He'd becoming to “kick our head in” and throw us into the fire, after our judgment, despite our claims, rather than take us home. There, I appropriated language.
There are strengths and weaknesses in the church growth movement.
Yeah, growing numbers: that's fundamental to Church Growth, “numbers”; I'm not stranger to the writings on it. And Christ is he who said “few”...When they teach “an unhealthy church is one that's not growing”, and “a healthy church is one that's growing” they're speaking purely out of imaginations. When they start utilizing demographics to tailor the gospel, rather than preaching it purely, and relying on God to add to the Church only (whether or not they explicitly add the words “it's God that does it, though implicitly they deny it) thereby also choosing themselves whom they want to bear witness to (and excluding others) that's a crime: and I would bet this will be one of those grave things before God's judgment seat where we'll cringe as it's considered. We should rely on God's Spirit, not more methods, to produce results. The widely popular Finney used to teach that any mathod that worked should be used...and Warren dares says that anyone can be saved if we only find the key to their heart; Jesus said that no man could come unto him unless the father gave them to him; Paul wrote they were known before the foundation of the world!
It's not credible to blame the ills common in the GC* on "seeker-sensitive" approaches to worship, as GC*'s problems predate the church growth movement, and there are many Willow Creek-style churches that don't exhibit the negatives of GC*.
Maybe not all of them, or to every degree...but many. And no, GC doesn't pre-date “Church Growth”: it's beginnings are found in the 1800s in missions to India, and the “intellectual founder” was a missionary...to India...guess when: and it was he who began producing the popular books on it (particularly in the 40s and 50s), and produced the seminary-courses to train new disciples thereof (his name was Donald McGavran); and it's probably Robert Schuller that most popularized it, while it's C. Peter Wagner who's McGavran's intellectual heir at fuller; the same guy claiming to be an apostle laying a “new” foundation. Oh, and do you know who bragged of starting the “mega church movement” (which has whacked a few people here)? Robert Schuller. Today I see on paper and in voice GC says its' about “sending capacity, not seating capacity” yet then they write that one of their goals is
#) Growth
a. Numerically
Meanwhile GC is just taking-on new problems, and a re-inforcement of authoritarianism. Someone on this forum actually posted to a spiritual research site linked to a talk about how authoritarianism is usually what cults need to keep together, and that it's a good indicator. GC, as far as I know, began with a very Charismatic teacher (as I've heard from everyone that ever knew or witnessed him) who was very convincing, who also started with authoritarian problems as far as we can tell, and perpetrated abuse against dissident, and trained many of the pastors that are around even today. It doesn't help that Herschel went around teaching any such dissidence was slander...or that his teaching was never repudiated and that I still hear it all the time.
GC's problems don't
start with Seeker Sensitive, but they were aggravated and added to by it. I would like anyone who could expound upon this to do so because perhaps they'd have more insight. GC's problems started with scripture wresting and unqualified teachers/leaders...and even admits they have a need of
qualified leaders, though I don't know if they're admitting they've been taking anyone, or if they mean their own standards. Meanwhile Willow Creek has just publicly announced that everything they've done...is ALL wrong, and that it was futile, that they wasted millions of dollars, and that their surveys-and-do tactics were useless...and that they have to take some more surveys. : ( Willow Creek Style Church is marketing/statistics, rather than following the word.
We're not to dialogue with the world, though we do talk, but we're told to “preach”, to “proclaim”, not to hypothetically deny Jesus; if I marry a woman and you say “okay, but hypothetically if she didn't exist [with the background that you actually don't believe she does] I'm not going to assent, I'm going to say “she does””, not deny her. We're NOT this world's friend, but neither its persecutor or ruler, just sheep among wolves. By the way, the mentor of both Bill Hybels (Willow Creek) and Rick Warren? Robert Schuller...who also did marketing surveys to start his Church...who also denies Christ and teaches a self-esteem gospel; another of Warren's is Bob Buford, a business-minded guy who applied secular principles (those of the world) to the Church. Schuller, Warren, and Hybels started...with Surveys to market a place people could satisfy their religious appetites on, not Christ gathering-out people who come together in true love and unity of the Holy Spirit. Guess who else very often did this, and also make it “comfortable” for people...and slowly warm-up preaching till it got to sin and Christ (if in full at all) rather than starting with Christ? Many of you guys around here know these answers, and have different answers, yet are right.
I have this to ask,
When we seek to engage the world, and not Christ, are we really his? or are we at enmity with him? and thus if it is so, can we even claim him? And if we're sensitive to sinners, not Jesus, who is it that is our first love? I'd rather be sensitive to me First Love, and engage him: Jesus the Christ.
