| Author | Message | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1076 Registered: 7-2003  |
Stan, I guess I'm just out of it. I just don't see some of the things people claim is happening in the churches...and I have a lot of friends, who go to a variety of churches. You said: "The Bible is not studied with any thing close to the same passion that PDL is studied" I take great offense to that comment and wonder on what basis you make such a statement. While I can't speak to every church, I have asked my friends about this topic. My church spent 8 months this year just studying the book of Ephesians (and that's AFTER "studying" PDL). If attendance is a measure of interest, our average attendance has grown this year. It is just plain unfair to say that if people do PDL, they'll become superficial Christians and no longer interested in studying scripture. In looking for a group myself this summer, I found people studying Galatians, 1 Thess, John.... Sure, some did topics (raising Godly Boys, Shepherding a child's heart), etc. Does that make them "superficial", as they're not scripture...and is that PDLs fault?? I'm really not trying to argue for argument sake, but I read an overwhelming condemnation of churches who do a PDL series, which is inaccurate given what I've witnessed first hand. I've seen none of the things mentioned above about lack of desire for scripture or superficial Christians...neither do I consider myself one...and I think I'm pretty average. I would go so far as to say people are less interested in doing PDL than a study on the books of the Bible that I've talked to. Some found it of value, others thought it was too basic as we've said here. Maybe somewhere some of those things are valid, but I'd like to see the supporting documentation for such claims that seem to be merely inflammatory. IF it is true about SOME churches, show me they were live, vital churches BEFORE doing PDL. I guess I just get a bit defensive when someone seems to be making accusations about "my" church and "my" now supposedly lacking interest in scripture. If anything, what I have seen in my church is that some who I would have considered "weaker" in the faith are now more interested in scripture than at other times in their walk. I can't find fault with that. I know of no one who lost interest in scripture. If there are some supported studies or stats that prove people who do PDL lose their interest in scripture, I know my pastor would be interested and I'd love to pass them on. I do know some of the stats about churches who did PDL given at our leadership meeting last year....SS attendance up, worship attendance up, people plugged in to small group Bible studies up, people in service in the church up, baptisms up (which may or may not be a good measure of conversions). I own PDL, I read it once, put it on a shelf and am now reading "10 essentials of highly healthy people" by Walt Larimore from Focus on the Family. That's in addition to my regular Bible study, which has been Romans and Galatians this year, and nearly every sermon on Mark Martin's website. I also bought a text book on learning New Testament Greek, which I hope to start if I ever get the boxes unpacked at my house. I have no connection to RW and don't care if someone does or doesn't like his style of teaching, worship, etc. I'm not here to defend him or anything he does. But as someone who has used the book as a tool, I just don't see it as "dangerous", leading one away from Christ or scripture or the body. Where I take exception is the assessment that I am becoming a superficial Christian and lacking interest in scripture study because I read that book. We probably just have to disagree on this one! | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 311 Registered: 7-2004  |
Melissa, I really don't have an axe to grind against RW or PDL. I have seen churches with studies of Scrpiture also having groups studying PDL. But I have been to churches where the small group "Bible" studies, and the SS classes are studying every kind of book EXCEPT Scripture. I can not conclude to what degree PDL is a symptom or a contributing factor to this activity. But it is an activity that gets me worked up. I certainly don't think Scripture is the only thing we should ever read or study. One look at my bulging library is evidence of that. But when small group "Bible" studies are studying everything except Scripture I am worried for the Spiritual health of the church and the members. I think that we need to question the ends justify the means mentality. I don't think that this is just a question of music style in worship (I love contemporary P&W). I think it is a question of the emphasis on Scripture and the emphasis on Christ and Him crucified. That emphasis can happen in a variety of worship styles. The church that we attended that was the most heavily involved in PDL/PDC was more of a giant self-help meeting than it was a presentation of the Gospel. As a result of this experience my views of RW are undoubtedly tainted. I think that we need to question the idea that the success of an effort is based in growing church numbers. I also think we need to question the idea that even a talented man can write a book that makes the Gospel more attractive than God can in His Word. What does this say about our view inspiration? What does this say about our view of God's power? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 788 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi Melissa, First of all, my apologies if you in anyway interpreted my comments to be directed personally at you. That is the frustration I have with using a typewriter, and, being hurried due to my circumstances. That is no excuse for being sloppy with my statements. I read my post again and I guess I would have to say that you and I agree mostly about the person of Rick Warren. I said he preaches Christ and definitely does not do it for profit. You and I are agreed that he is careless about using scripture out of context, and his reliance on paraphrases. This should raise a red flag, because if he uses whatever version or paraphrase just to make the point he wants, then I do see a problem. You compared PDL to Beth Moore series, and since I have not read Beth Moore, I can only comment on all the fine reviews she got on this forum on a thread started by Dd. No one ever hinted that her methods were unbiblical. Also in searching the same web sites that are critical of Rick Warren, there isn't one negative comment about the Beth Moore series on these sites. From the comments posted by many here it was the overwhelming consensus that her series led to a deeper study of God's Word. And I didn't hear anything about her using a lot of paraphrases out of context. You mentioned other books we talk about. The great classics of the faith such as J.I. Packer's "Knowing God" does not use scripture in an out of context way. Charles Swindoll has not to my knowledge been guilty of this pactice. And if Rick Warren, who is the protestant guru now with the largest church in the USA, is using methods that are unscriptural, then he needs to be scrutinized very carefully. Do you not agree, as Time magazine says, that he is the most influential evangelical in America? If you are a reader of Ladies Home Journal, have you read Rick Warren's monthly columns in that journal? Here is a person who reviewed the March issue that was his first column www.challies/com/archives/000876.php and Tim Challies did have concerns. This person has at least been even-handed with his criticism in the past. But why did Warren use the column space to talk about self esteem? Why not a clear statement about the good news of the gospel? Maybe in subsequent issues he has made the gospel clearer, and I would love to be corrected on this one. But in this politically correct world, there seems to be a tendency to be ashamed of the gospel. Maybe he's afraid he would turn off his audience. We are only given the Biblical example in Acts as to how to preach the gospel in the public square, and that is with boldness, and declaring both the wrath of God and the gospel remedy. Maybe Tim's review of the column is unfair, and if you have read it or someone can find it, then maybe I will have to correct myself. Melissa, you are not a superficial Christian. I did not say in my post that all who study PDL are superficial, and I did not say PDL was dangerous and led people away from Christ. Sometimes generalizations are dangerous, and maybe I was guilty of that. I have other info to present when I get time to back up other statements. But mostly these are my general observations and did not mean to say that these statements applied to you. Again, sorry for any offense. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 789 Registered: 3-2005 |
Let's try that link to the Challies review of the Ladies Home Journal again. www.challies.com/archives/000876.php Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 811 Registered: 3-2005 |
How did Purpose Driven Life achieve the smashing marketing success that it has enjoyed with well over 25 million books served? Well here is another fascinating article by Tim Challies about a marketing technique known as "Pyromarketing" that was developed by Zondervan's marketing genius Greg Stielstra. www.challies.com/archives/001039.php Stan | ||
| Insideoutsider Registered user Username: Insideoutsider Post Number: 33 Registered: 6-2002 |
Why do we limit God, that He can't use the marketing methods of our capitalistic United States? That he can't use the many and varied talents of Zonderman's authors. When I read Tim Challies article, I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, especially when seekers are called naive evangelical dry wood. It was the same kind of sick feeling I used to get in Adventism when everything was touch not, taste not, experience not, just "trust me", from the grumpy prophet and equally grumpy administrators of her words. Who is Tim Challis to say that using "marketing genius" is wrong? That putting people who had never been in small groups before in small groups to learn, pray, and share concerns with one another is wrong? Why is success a sin? When I was invited to Bible Study Fellowship after not attending church for 15 years, the only Bible we had in the house was the Oh no! paraphrased Living Bible. I came into the BSF class in March and they were right in the middle of Galations. My experience as a third generation (non-practicing) SDA was that Paul wasn't to be trusted and was really hard to understand. I continued to use the Living Bible for at least two years mostly because when you are terribly thirsty for God's word, the goal was to drink as fast as possible. Eventually I got other versions but I have such a tender spot in my heart for my now old Living version. I don't mean to be unkind to anyone, most, probably all of the posters here are trying to help and encourage one another. We are all blessed by the postings, but I think that there are as many ways to the Lord Jesus as there are people who have been called by Him. Please lets not limit Him. His ways are now ours, they are beyond our wildest imagination. He is awesome! | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 316 Registered: 7-2004 |
Regarding Bible versions--I am convinced that the Bible version you read is far better than the Bible versions that collect dust. Even if it is a <gasp> paraphrase or loose translation. | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 279 Registered: 1-2003  |
Ric, Amen to that. The best version of the Bible for you is the one you read.  Richard | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 825 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jan, I appreciate your review of Challies article. Did you also check out the article on the previous post regarding Rick Warren's article in Ladies Home Journal? Is there anything that would bother you about the most famous pastor in the world writing an article where he would shy away from preaching the gospel in a straight-forward manner, and instead preach self-esteem? Maybe you read the actual article in Ladies Home Journal and have a different opinion. Maybe Challies is just being mean and one-sided. He does come from the Reformed branch of Christianity which I now claim as well, so maybe I read too much of Reformed writers. But people like R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and others have not been too complimentary of the seeker-sensitive movement, because the gospel seems to get watered down. In that Ladies Home Journal article Mr. Warren says that God loves everyone unconditionally. Is that what the Bible teaches? We have been studying Romans 9 in our FAF study for the last 6 months worth of Friday nights. That chapter is not easy reading, and we may not like what God actually says, but we must still deal with the text. Romans 9: 19 "One of you will say to me: 'then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Verse 22 and ff "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? Rom 9:13 "Just as it is written 'Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. Mr. Warren, how can you get a theology that God loves everybody unconditionally out of these texts? I am sorry Jan, as you can see I feel passionately about this topic. The seeker-sensitive movement is simply unbiblical. If the Sunday morning message is getting watered down to be more seeker sensitive, then I have a problem. If Mr Warren uses column space to promote self-esteem instead of the plain simple word of the gospel, then I have a problem. In Adventism, many of us blindly followed a prophetess down a path. I will have no part in setting up Mr. Warren on some pedestal that popular Christianity gives homage to with very little questioning. I know I have alienated many people on thei forum because of my views, but so be it, when the very integrity of God's Word is at stake when Mr. Warren preaches self-esteem in a popular magazine. Now what about worldly methods for getting the gospel out? Does the Bible give any credence to using Wall Street marketing methods? If I read 1Cor. 1 and 2 correctly, I would have to question that assumption. 1 Cor 2:1 and ff. "When I came to you brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words (or parenthetically I would add worldly marketing techniques),"but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." I don't know what could be clearer than those words. But the seeker-sensitive movement may also be suspect in that Romans 3:11 says "there is no one who understands, no one who SEEKS God" Jan, I welcome you to show from scripture where this whole popular movement is Biblical. Everywhere in the book of Acts where the gospel is preached, the apostles are not doing polls to find out what the felt needs of the people are, or what their favorite music is. Worship is about God, it is not about us. That is where the seeker-sensitive movement is wrong. It is about seekers and not about primarily glorifying God. I believe that if all the churches who are sponsoring PDL book studies for unbelievers, would sponsor gospel of John Bible studies, then we would see unprecedented revival. I am not seeing increased interest in Bible study and a true Revival as a fruit of this movement over the last 15 years. God will honor the preaching of His unadulterated Word in bringing a harvest to His kingdom. I am sorry if the above is offensive. I welcome comments from any one as to whether what I have said is unbiblical. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I am not trained in theology, so I could be dead wrong about this. I just can't read the words of the Apostle Paul, and study the book of Acts, except come up with any other conclusion about what popular Christianity is teaching today. I suppose I will have to agree to disagree with most of you on this particular topic. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2574 Registered: 12-2003  |
I am convinced that God uses whatever means are available to reach peopleóeven people and movements that may not be grounded in truth. For example, my grandmother left the Greek Orthodox Church and joined the Adventist church nearly a centry ago in order to have access to the Bible. I struggled for a long time, during my years of leaving, to come to terms with why God would take her from one Scripture-less religion and lead her to a "cult". I finally realized that her having access to the Scriptures meant she could meet and accept Jesus--which is what she did. There was no other church accessible to my grandmother, and thru Adventism she found Jesus. I finally came to realize that God didn't want my grandmother to "be Adventist"; He wanted her to know Him. Adventism was simply an available means to an end, and since it was there, He used it in my g'ma's life. (Incidentally, she never really accepted Ellen White, the state of the dead, vegetarianism, etc.) Two generations later, I am passionate about the deception of Adventism and the false premises on which it was founded. I believe it holds all its members in bondage, some to greater degrees than others--but bondage nonetheless. None of what I know to be true about Adventism's deceptive nature, however, negates the fact that through it, my grandmother was able to learn about Jesus and to escape an empty ritual that kept her in spiritual darkness. Do I think that Adventism is worth defending because some have thereby found Jesus? No. In fact, I believe that God is behind the truth about the church becoming increasingly known. He is calling people to integrity and truthfulness. All this is to say that God can use anything as a tool to bring people to Him. I believe that the real secret is people's deep desire to know truth. If a person desires truth, God will honor that desire--even if the means at hand are not perfect. I think this is what Jan means when she says that God uses even "soft" Christian books as tools to reach people. I believe that people need deep grounding in the Bible. I also believe that if people are only exposed to watered down materials in which the gospel may not be as clear as it could be, God can still use that if the reader desires to know Him. I do not believe God leaves a person in the shallowness of murky theology, but He does bring them to Himself, often, through means we don't understand. I'm not excusing sloppy theology or self-esteem talk instead of Bible teaching. I'm just saying that God can work through whatever means are there in order to reach people. In the final analysis, God alone knows which of our works will be eternal and which will be burned (1 Cor 3), but even those which will be burned can be used in spite of their inventor's mixed motives if God wishes to reach a person. These doomed works may actually twist people's understanding of many things--as Adventism twisted my g'mas' understanding and hence her children's--yet even with that possibility, He can reveal Himself if a person desires to know Him, and He can redeem the twistedness. I'm not excusing sloppy theology--I'm just saying that God is sovereign even over our ill-conceived constructs! I'm grateful for that. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 826 Registered: 3-2005 |
God is absoluteluy sovereign!!! I want to make clear that I believe that God can use EGW's "Desire of Ages" (as in the case of one of our Bible study's members) or other books that at least teach the basics (albeit watered down and out of context scripture) to lead them to Christ. He takes them however to a greater understanding of His Word. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2576 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Stan. Colleen | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 264 Registered: 2-2001 |
vegetables before meat we all have to start somewhere | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 277 Registered: 8-2004 |
Yep! And sometimes we even start with 'fast food'! | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1079 Registered: 7-2003 |
Most influential evangelical in America?? Not where I live. I think Billy Graham still holds that title. I think Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, Charles Stanley, Max Lucado, and Tony Evans would get higher notice than RW. We rarely hear anything about RW or his church. Just today, I heard his church is Southern Baptist. Christianbook.com has this posted under the PDL book (other info): "After presenting his principles for a Purpose Driven Life three years ago during a seven-week "40 Days of Purpose" spiritual growth emphasis at Saddleback, the church experienced incredible results: 564 people accepted Christ, 1,065 new believers were baptized, 1,628 new members joined Saddleback, 2,701 signed up to serve in a lay ministry and 5,465 were trained in personal evangelism committed to a world missions project." Are those good things? Is there a problem with Focus on the Family doing the "family minute" on secular TV and radio stations? They are clearly not teaching the gospel, and they clearly claim to be a Christian organization. But you don't hear a lot of gospel on their typical program, just Christian living and yes, even esteem topics. Would LHJ even publish something if it was "religious" or the gospel? It reminds me of conversations we had years ago when Amy Grant "crossed over" and did some songs that didn't specifically speak about God/faith, etc. Some said she had abandoned the Christian faith and become "materialistic" because she was singing "just" ballads and not "Christian" songs. I struggled with that too, because if you liked her "hit" and bought her albums, there were other songs that did speak to her faith. As for scripture? 1Co 9:19 For being free of all, I enslaved myself to all, that I might gain the more. 1Co 9:20 And I became as a Jew to the Jews, that I might gain Jews; to those under Law as under Law, that I might gain those under Law; 1Co 9:21 to those without Law as without Law (not being without Law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might gain those without Law. 1Co 9:22 I became to the weak as weak, that I might gain the weak. To all I have become all things, that in any and every way I might save some. 1Co 9:23 And I do this for the gospel, that I might become a fellow partaker of it. 1Co 9:24 Do you not know that those running in a stadium indeed all run, but one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain. 1Co 9:25 But everyone striving controls himself in all things. Then those truly that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. 1Co 9:26 So I run accordingly, as not uncertainly; so I fight, as not beating air; 1Co 9:27 but I buffet my body and lead it captive, lest proclaiming to others I myself might be disapproved. I do computer support. (For macs, of course). When a user's computer won't boot, I can ask if they've reset the pmu switch, but 99.5% would not have a clue what I was talking about. When a user's hard drive has crashed, I can talk about cylinders and heads and spin rates, and circuitry. Depending upon the hearer's understanding of my language and terminology, they may or may not understand a single word I've said. If I say, I hope you have a backup because you've lost all your data, they get that. In my mind's eye, we live in a society that has no longer been raised in church. The most basic terminology is foreign. They don't understand the need to be saved because they don't know they're lost. They see good and bad in human terms not holy terms. While I am sure that there are those out there writing books for the sake of the profit, I tend to think most people are writing with the best of intentions. I see RW no differently. This is not a book of theological doctrine. It is very basic Christian living...some detailed specifically in scripture, some not...but not excluded either. I think RW's trying to take a message to an "illiterate" world in terms they'll understand. In the process, they learn about Christ. I don't dispute the criticism of "the message" version of the bible, but that doesn't justify eating our young either. What I do know, is there are active and growing Christians in my church that never would have dreamed of going to a church except for the fact they read PDL. It's sure easy to say "they should just read the Bible". They weren't looking for God...but God found them where they were. Some say it's the church's job to help these babies grow to maturity. We can say all the technically correct words, but if no one is coming to hear the message, it won't impact anyone's life. I've read comments on both sides, but it's like saying a dispensationalist doesn't care about scripture. Having listened to a number of dispensatioinalist teachers, I assure you, they think they are studying scripture accurately and diligently trying to understand what it's saying, even if someone else sees something different. But how many would rather divide than worship with a dispensationalist? This is not an issue of "following" RW to me. He's not breaking away from the SB denomination to begin his own, and people are not discarding scripture for his book. It is a tool, and in the right circumstances, seems to have value, in spite of its flaws. There is no "false gospel" that I read. In Matthew 7, it says that by the same measure we judge, we'll be judged. We're not talking about someone skewing the gospel. RW's not saying there is a different way to get to heaven. He's talking about life AS a Christian. Some of it may not be detailed out point by point in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't tell me I should brush my teeth. Does that make it bad I do? Personally, I'm tired of divisions and labels and strife. And, I don't want to be judged so harshly ... I've screwed up royally in my life...and I need all the grace I try to give others. If it's not contradicting scripture, it may or may not be a valuable idea. But we've sure spent a lot of time trying to condemn the man for his efforts, no matter his intentions or if his idea is remotely positive for at least some in the body of Christ. James Dobson sure gives a lot of parent advice that isn't detailed out in scripture. Where do we draw the line of our double standard? Or is it merely the broad based popularity RW has received? IF JD were received as broadly, would the Christian community be more critical of him and his techniques? Just questions. I don't have answers. I remember my pastor talking about growing as a pastor. He said you do your best when preparing a sermon to rightly divide the word of truth as you understand it. You talk to other pastor friends, read commentaries, study the original texts, all to try to make sure you understand something, yet 5 years later, you look at the text again, and your comprehension changes dramatically. Unfortunately, those audio cassettes you sold 5 years ago are still out there running, though you now think there was some error in what you were teaching. So, do we only allow people to teach who have "arrived" at complete spiritual understanding? Are these people not allowed to be human, with growing dynamics in understanding and spiritual insight? I disagree with something most every pastor I've heard has said. And most pastors I know disagree with other pastors on passages interpretation and meaning and applicability somewhere along the line. What is the line between heresy, personal preference, grace, maturity? I've been in churches where people got saved, put in a SS class with "mature" Christians who really didn't know how to nurture a baby. We've got books on how to rear our physical young, but one for our spiritual young has certainly taken a lot of heat...some of it, I don't think justified. I would not want every word I've ever said or done to be scrutinized with the same magnifying glass that RW seems to be getting these days. I'm way too flawed to endure such scrutiny. Some have found value in the book, others not. Why not allow God to meet each where he is and use whatever tools he sees fit? But I don't see RW as the next Benny Hinn, Joseph Smith, EGW or even that popular as an individual. But there's sure a lot of venom directed his way.... Seems people love him or hate him. Seems it would be a more fair analysis of his writing to include the positives rather than just the negatives of his book. Both do exist.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2579 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great points, Melissa. I am becoming increasingly aware that people are simultaneously deeply flawed and "right on". This state is the result of beng still in mortal bodies flawed by sin while having regenerate spirits filled with the Holy Spirit. I especially liked your pastor's point, Melissa, about having a completely different understanding of something five years later--but his early sermons are still out there circulating. I've also found that my understanding has changed, in some cases drastically, over the past five years. Not only popular pastors and evangelists but each of us is growing. I do believe we must honor people's commitment to Jesus even if we see their theology as immature or even wrong. While I see it as appropriate to point out what may be wrong, I believe we must simultaneously remember that God is dealing with each of us, and what we see (and what others see of us) is not the finished product. We must be alert and discerning, and we must allow God to take us away from evil and protect us from itóbut we must also allow Christ-followers to be in varyng states of growth. Colleen | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 282 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thanks Melissa for saying what I wish I had the time to write out. I find I disagree in some points with most people I talk with. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't have it all figured out yet. In His grace God is patiently nurturing me and guiding me into "truth". Like you said if you go back and review what you believed or wrote 5 years before you hopefully will find growth and a greater understanding of who God is and how He has revealed Himself to you. Again i do believe there is "absolute truth" but I DON'T think that I totally understand it yet. Richard rtruitt@mac.com PS: Melissa it is nice to see another Mac person online. If your a Mac expert maybe I'll ask you some questions if I get stuck. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 829 Registered: 3-2005 |
I would like to share an article by R.C. Sproul regarding the church growth movement. I have been recently inspired by some of his recent radio series on "The Holiness of God". He has a concern that the modern Christian church is losing the doctrine of God-centeredness. This article is very interesting and is called "Swimming Upstream" www.glenwoodhillsbiblechurch.org/article.asp?ID=621&CatName=The%20 Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1874 Registered: 3-2004  |
Now that I have accepted Jesus into my life, it is so freeing not to have to have all the answers and believe I have all the truth. It feels so good to say, "I do not know, but I will look it up". Thank you God. You are truly awesome. Diana | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 831 Registered: 3-2005 |
In that Sproul article I posted above, I just reread it. I can't believe it. He even says some seeker friendly churches are even offering oil changes while they are in church! Where will this stuff end? At Saddleback you can choose between four different music styles to keep you entertained. Wow! The apostle Paul is shaking his head right now. Check out 1 Cor. 2:1-5 again. Someone tell me, what am I missing? Am I just old fashioned? I love contemporary praise and worship music with a beat, and I also love hymns sung by the London Symphony and Chorus. Worship doesn't have to be boring, but I have to wonder about what is going on today. Some churches are even removing crosses and stained glass windows to be more seeker sensitive...Oh well! Stan |
