| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 920 Registered: 3-2005 |
Melissa --Thanks for injecting that great light note! I agree that there are many godly Christian psychologists, and overall James Dobson has fought a valiant battle. I don't have a problem with him emphasizing self esteem in kids. I am not against all teaching of self esteem. I thought that article referenced above did show the contrast between Schuller's false gospel of self esteem, and the Biblical concept about how our guilt can be wonderfully dealt with in Jesus Christ. The fact that that author quoted approvingly from Paul Tornier, the author of a wonderful book calle"Guilt and Grace" which is considered a classic means that he is not condemning psychology since Tornier is recognized as one of great Christian psychologists. But, the other side of the coin as Ric_B said is that so much psychology comes from the most corrupt sources. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1117 Registered: 7-2003  |
I would guess it's a fine line somewhere ...that self esteem stuff, I mean. I grew up being told I didn't matter at all. No one cared about my feelings, no one thought what I thought was funny was funny, etc. and these were things my mother said to me. It is no wonder that I have grown up seeming to find people who have affirmed that I am as worthless as my mother seemed to tell me I was through my childhood. Because while we are wretched humans, etc., we are also so valuable to God that he sent his son to die for us. I could certainly identify with my wretchedness, but I can honestly say that identifying myself as "valuable" has always been an issue for me. B's judgments were just a different version of the same old condemnation I'd heard all my rememberable life. No wonder I would tolerate it, when someone with a healthy self-esteem would have recognized they didn't deserve to be treated that way. I don't want my kids to marry someone that treats them abusively, yet kids without self-esteem often find further relationships that "affirm" that poor self-esteem. Certainly, there must be a form of healthy self esteem that does appropriately find itself in church. While I guess that it is also possible to over-do a positive thing, it's very difficult for me to understand personally. The statistics of children of divorce, for example, is like reading my life history. So, it seems there are plenty of healing opportunities and hopefully such opportunities are not ignored by the church. It would seem to me that the church is absolutely a wonderful place for people to learn about their value and worth, without diminishing the fallen nature of man as a whole. Even in my 40s, I'm terrified on some level of my mother's judgment. That does not build healthy relationships, and if people view parents in any way as they see God ("father", authority, whatever) then I would hope we would want to clarify what is true from their experiencial reality. which is also true in a different sort of way. Am I making any sense? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 921 Registered: 3-2005 |
Melissa. you are correct. That is why I believe in what people like Dobson and others are doing. The author Don Matzat who wrote the above article has also written a book called "Christ Esteem", that our worth as seen in Jesus is infinite. He redeemed us by His blood, so yes, our identity is in Christ. The problem in the discussion especially with regard to the point of the article, is using pulpits on Sunday AM as a place for preaching feel-good sermons based on pop psychology. Schuller happens to be the grandfather of the Seeker movement, so it is his theology that gets attacked most often. Schuller has blatantly said as quoted in the article above that we should never preach the wrath of God, and we should not point out their guilt. That kind of preaching is very popular today, but it is not the gospel. I think we may see the pendulum swing back to Biblical preaching again, as frankly many people are starting to see through the shallowness of what has made up some-but not all-- that is being done to try to sugarcoat the gospel. I am hearing from pastors who say that people are writing them saying, "Where can we go to hear the gospel preached today?" There is a longing for substance, and a hunger to hear the Word of God. I would recommend reading Paul Tornier's book "Guilt and Grace", as I just found my copy this AM. It provides the right balance between guilt and grace, but presents the true remedy for our souls, Jesus Christ. I am not sure why so many Christians want to seek after the world's wisdom that is contained in the secular psychologists. It is hard to Christianize stuff, where if you examine its roots, you realize that it is true paganism. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2718 Registered: 12-2003  |
I second the recommendation of Paul Tournier. His books have wonderful insight into the psychological workings of the human heart and the reality that true health is found in Christ. I think secular psychology is a clever counterfeit of something that is real. I have watched born again social workers and psychologists help people find healing for deep emotional and psychological wounds by understanding the deceptive coping mechanisms of the human mind and drawing their clients back to the reallity of allowing Jesus to heal their broken psyches, rooting them in the eternal truth of His love and power. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 924 Registered: 3-2005 |
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a prophet? Did he talk about what is happening today in churches? The last years of his life were spent fighting worldliness in the church of his day. Look what has happened now in post-modern London where he preached for so many years. Very hard to find any evangelical fervor at all. If you would like to read what he said about compromising the gospel then go to www.myfortress.org/spurgeononchurch.html But I warn you, some of what he says is so reminescent of what is going on today, that it might get you very upset. If you scroll down aways, you will come to a sermon of his entitled "Are we Feeding the Sheep, or Amusing the Goats? I will tell you that I don't agree with all of his conclusions especially with his statements on the use of entertainment, but see what you think, but I think he was talking about replacing the true message with entertainment. Yell at Spurgeon, but not at me (smile), but I believe this gives us all something to think about with regard to the need to be true to the whole gospel message. Stan | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 203 Registered: 2-2005 |
For what it's worth, I came across a passage written by Nathan Busenitz in the John MacArthur edited book "Fools Gold" today that stood out to me. In the previous paragraphs to this, several examples were offered of the Word being used inappropriately to make desired points. Then it stated: Sound familiar? Granted, the above is one man's opinion, but this should throw up a red flag to former Adventists who are all too familiar with this sort of proof-texting. This might as well have been a review of Amazing Facts or It Is Written materials. To be fair, Busenitz does list out the postives of the book, as well. I'm not saying PDL is all bad, just that Warren's hermeneutics ought to be considered, apparently. Heretic | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1118 Registered: 7-2003 |
That quote says Rick's points are Biblical, but the texts are wrong to some points. That seems somewhat different than Amazing Facts, which are not Biblical concepts to begin with, right? No dispute, he should have stuck with texts that clearly (and contextually) made his point and moved on. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 926 Registered: 3-2005 |
The problem with the likes of Rick Warren, and Billy Hybels of Willow Creek, runs so far beyond just the publication of a book which plays fast and loose with scripture. Both these men have recently endorsed the false prophet T.D. Jakes. Melissa, I think I have seen you admit that T.D. Jakes is off. Mr. Jakes denies the doctrine of the Trinity!! Recently in a major interview with the likes of David Brooks, a very popular columnist for the New York Times Mr. Warren quoted from Mr. Jakes in an approving fashion, and he also said that he believed he was closer to Catholicism than he previously thought (another totally false religion), and he acted very neutral toward Mormonism, and in fact Catholic "priests" and mormon leaders flock to his church growth seminars. If SDA is false, then RCC is false. Former SDAs cannot be consistent in anyway if they want to say RCC is just another Christian religion, because neither is SDA. I will provide a link when I get a chance with Warren saying all these things I mentioned above. Here is a link where Bill Hybels who started before Rick Warren, hosted T.D. Jakes at Willow Creek. This reference states that Hank Hanegraf tried to have Lee Strobel,(author of "Case for Christ") talk to Hybels to stop it. It didn't work. So he is in league with people who deny the Trinity, and affirm the false gospel of "name it and claim it". The link is www.myfortress.org/Jakes-WillowCreek.html Where is any semblance of discernment left? MacArthur who authored that book Heretic referred to above says that "the evangelical church is shockingly ignorant, and is matched only by its cowardice" when it comes to confronting false doctrine. Now I know even more fully why the mainstream evangelical church will NEVER recognize SDAs as being a false gospel. These "leaders" wouldn't know what false doctrine was if it hit them in the face as evidenced by the link above. I know this sounds unkind, but I don't know how to be kind when false doctrine is being welcomed and encouraged. Stan | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 149 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi Everyone, I'm back! Ric_B asked "Are any of the psychology schools of thought pro-Christian? Freud? Jung? Skinner? Maslow? Adler? Does putting Christian window dressing on a secular approach make it somehow Christian?" No to the 1st question - I don't think any of the psychology schools of thought are pro-Christian. Yes to the 2nd question - we can use a Christian approach when using these theories. I don't think a school of thought needs to be either pro-Christian or anti-Christian. The understanding, or interpretation of these ideas is only the beginning. What to do with this understanding is the question. I can take a concept and then apply Christian teaching to it and use it in a psychological setting. For example, I don't think Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is necesarily Christian. But the approach I use to fulfill these needs can be based on Christian principles. The same goes for other theories of psychology. My complaint is about the blanket distrust of psychology by many Christian leaders. I would rather see them (and us) talking about how to apply Chrisian principles to the use of these theories. I have seen too much damage done by Christians when they just tell a person to "pray harder" or to "have more faith". There needs to be a better understanding of where that person is coming from first. The person may need to be prayed for and counselled (taught) about the power of prayer and faith, but they need to be reached right where they're at, and then brought into greater understanding of these Christian principles. I will say although this may take time - days, years, etc, it can also happen in a flash! Such is the power of the Holy Spirit! I'm not very eloquent about this. I know my brain works better that my mouth - or fingers in this case - can convey! So I hope I'm making sense. I'm not for empty "feel-good" messages, or quick fixes as some well-known, and not so well-known, preachers teach. But, I don't think we need to be always starting our outreach with teaching about how worthless we are. When we begin to see Jesus, and understand His holiness, we will also begin to understand fully our worthlessness. I'm just argueing for open-mindedness in using a variety of approaches to presenting the Gospel. And I'm not endorsing any particular style. I only want there to be less use of the phrases "feel-good" and "self-esteem" in a negative context. I believe the Gospel IS a "feel-good" message and helps with "self-esteem" in a positive way! It wasn't until I understood the Gospel correctly that I really felt good about myself - understanding how worthless I really am, AND how SAVED I am through faith in Jesus Christ. As usual, I seem to be taking the minority stance! But I really just want there to be room for diversity - within the bounds of Biblical Christianity. I believe God made us each unique, as well as having many common needs. Above all is the need for God and all that implies. Again, thanks for the good dialogue. I hope you can "feel" my good feelings coming through this. I'm not feeling at all antagonistic. Stan - I accept your apology, although there was none needed. My angst is not against you, or any particular person! I only get heated at "group think" leading the way. OK? We are all still one big family - the Family of God. That doesn't change as long as we claim that connection! Sisterly - tisha | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2741 Registered: 12-2003 |
One of the most helpful experiences I've ever had was watching an amazing Christian LSW work with our boys and also with us. Bottom line--she brought Jesus into the equation, but she definitely used certain "psychological" understandings to help us think in more realistic ways. One of the biggest things she did for us, as we struggled with various things we (individually) had learned from an early age, was to help clarify what was "truth" and what was "posing" meant to conceal truth. I will never forget the day she told Richard and me that if we didn't validate our boys' statements and perceptions as truth and respond to them as truth (rather than by trying to be "politically correct" and putting a "happy face" on things that were really hurtful in their lives for the sake of "getting along"), we would make them feel and finally believe they were crazy. I learned more about living in and validating truth from her than from any other non-spiritual source. Ultimately, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who calls us from our self-destruction and gives us true worth. Seeking self-esteem anywhere but in Christ leaves us unconvinced and empty. Sometimes, though, we need help understanding that reality is bigger than we thought, and truth is something we MUST face if we wish to live in freedom. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 935 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tisha, I appreciate your comments. I think this issue of Christian psychology is an intereting one to discuss. Have you heard of Paul Tournier's book "Guilt and Grace" mentioned above? As I said before, this is an example of a great book bu either a psychologist or psychiatrist, I am not sure which. Stan | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 150 Registered: 3-2005 |
Stan, I read Tournier's book many years ago. I have it on my bookshelf and I'm going to get it down and reread it. I'm sure I'll see new things in it now, coming from a different perspective! I really do want to see Christian's using the tools of psychology with a Christian focus. I've met some Christian psychologists who are not willing to speak up and use their Christianity in a professional setting. And many Pastors are not equipped to deal with their parishoners psychological needs in a well-rounded way. I don't think it should be an either/or but a both/and type of pastoral or psychological counseling experience. The two should not be seen as necessarily opposing each other. Just my two cents worth! -tisha | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2030 Registered: 11-2002 |
Where I attend we have what is called Stephen Ministeries. The Stephen minister meets with the client weekly or bi-weekly and generally will pray about the problem. Of course, if a serious disorder is noticed the Stephen minister referrs the person to a professional mental health specialist. It's a wonderful program and many denominations use it. | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 212 Registered: 6-2001  |
Stan, I know that you and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to seeker-sensitive issues etc., but here is my thought. When I see people like Hybels and Warren being publically accepting of Catholics and others of questionable doctrine I see them as trying to present a united front of Christianity to the world. I think even you would agree public squabbles over what the world sees as minor differences in doctrine do not help the cause of Christianity. There are some Catholics that are Christians just like there are some Adventists. I do believe in absolute truth, and I do believe some denominations are closer to it than others, but it is so hard to draw a line and say "you teach enough truth to make it into the mainstream Christianity club," while another denomination does not. IMHO I cant even put someone on the "wall of shame" for not believing in the Trinity, since it is not explicitly taught in the Bible (implicitly yes) In fact didn't some early translators rewrite a verse to validate the Trinity when it is not what the verse was saying at all? Does someone who does not believe in the Trinity not allowed into Heaven? I know there are people who think it is their responsiblity to protect God's pure Word from negative influences, but actually they are protecting their view of God's pure Word. When you have too many people doing that, well you have a big mess. And actually, isn't God capable of doing the protecting? Hasn't he done it so far? I think the main point of what I was trying to say has become a bit lost, even a little in my own head, but if I could condense it it would be "you will know that they are Christians by their ... mmmm docrine? No, try again. mmmmm verses they quote? No, not that either. You know the answer, it is love. Lovingly, Hannah | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 323 Registered: 1-2003  |
Hannah, thanks for your thoughts. I came as many of us have from a system which all to often measured a persons "saved condition" and relationship with Christ by the purity of doctrine. I'm moving from that and not going back to it now. If love is not found in me then He is not in me. richard Rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 937 Registered: 3-2005 |
Respectfully Hannah we do disagree. The Trinity is one of the most basic of Christian beliefs, and even RCC holds to that. At what cost unity? If Bill Hybels knowingly and openly exposed 40,000 people to T.D. Jakes, when he knew he had a heretical view of the Trinity and also preaches a false "name it and claim it" message, and when Hank Hanegraf and Lee Strobel tried to stop it two weeks in advance, then I see a major problem. Rick Warren in May 2005 announced to members of the national press corps at a Pew forum, that the Protestant Reformation was essentially over, and that the first reformation was about doctrine, and doctrine only divides people. He gushed with excitement about how Catholics Evangelicals, and Pentecostals (and during that interview said that he appeared on stage with T.D. Jakes at a global prayer rally in Dallas) are now able to come together. He says the second reformation will be about good works. So it seems like he is saying that the pure gospel that Paul preached and that Martin Luther and all the reformers defended, and that countless martyrs spilled their blood for, only divided Christianity! Is that what we want to tell the world? The true church of Jesus Christ has always recognized that Catholicism is a blasphemous, demonic, and corrupt religion. Yes there are true Christians in RCC and SDA, but the doctrines that both these groups teach are false, and so are the doctines taught by T.D. Jakes. The sad fact is that Warren and Hybels do know better. They know what the reformation gospel is, and these men are compromising with the world to be men pleasers. Martin Luther said that the true church of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This Reformation truth is what true Christians gave their lives for, and it is the truth upon which many of us former SDAs came to know and love especially when Ford and Brinsmead were on the scene. It was when I saw that the SDA doctrine of salvation was identical to the RCC doctrine of salvation, that my heart melted, and I realized that I had been deceived by a false gospel of works. This is why I am so passionate about this topic. Never again will I be led by any teacher who will in anyway compromise the gospel of grace. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 938 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi Richard, I am puzzled just a bit by your post above. Are you saying doctrine is not really important? Do you believe that the Trinity is basic fundamental truth? Stan | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 324 Registered: 1-2003 |
No Stan that is not what I ment or thought that I said. What I was trying to say was that even if I know all "pure" doctrine and have not the love of Christ in my life I'm as a "clanging cymbal". I do believe in the trinity but that is not what will save me. Richard | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1130 Registered: 7-2003 |
Stan, do you really think they're teaching salvation by works, or more in line with James that works show up when you're saved? I would say the latter based upon my exposure to their programs. I don't have a problem with what you say in general terms, my problem is you take an awful lot of stuff other people say as accurate representations of the specific situation without any seeming first hand knowledge and without any concern that someone may be skewing their view of events to make them look worse than may be reality. I've heard TDJakes speak, for example. I don't think he teaches a false gospel because someone else says so, I think it because I've heard it personally. If I haven't heard it personally, isn't it just gossip? And while there is sometimes accurate information in gossip, there is a lot of bias as well. We can go to EGWs books and find out exactly what she has said...no questions. Some people spin it to the positive, some spin it to the negative, but you can read the whole context for yourself. I have to confess that as a young Christian, when I had no way to get to church, I watched Hour of Power as it was on. I saw an awful lot of Christians giving testimonies of God's grace in their lives. Many times there were very powerful testimonites. On my own, without anyone telling me, however, I thought Schuller's sermons were "off". And I couldn't put my finger on why, it just unsettled me. Now was that the Holy Spirit or just my own personal preferences not being satisfied?? If you're going to fault Rick Warren for being on Robert Schuller's platform...there are a lot of others who you need to dismiss as well. And as I've grown into adulthood, I have to admit I wonder why so many go there...unless they just don't know?? I can't judge their motives, only God knows their hearts. RW is not the only person I would consider an evangelical that I've seen in his church. So, why do we stop with RW in that regards? I know he's got a big church, I know he uses modern techniques, which seem distasteful to some, but I keep coming back to my own WA Minister and the impact of their conferences on his ministry ... which is not shallow or confused about the gospel. That is first hand information, not a report of a report. I just don't see people "following" these people in any greater way than a Chuck Swindoll or Charles Stanley or Max Lucado. Sure, they get ideas, but at least where I am, they are merely seed starters for technology or forms of worship. They don't change the basic foundation, which is the word. PERHAPS that is the unfortunate result in some places, but from what my WA minister says, that is not the goal. So, it is very hard to hear some things that are 20 or 30 second snippits of an event that is considerably longer, and knowing the person reporting that snippit has a negative bias, to discount what I know and have experienced from my WA minister for the last 6 years. I have personally spoken to him about some of these claims, and he hasn't seen it when there. I trust someone I know who has personally been there a bit more than someone I don't know who seems to be negative purely because they are using modern techniques. Our church has investigated the demographics of our area to know how to best reach out to the community. An area with lots of senior citizens probably doesn't care too much about our preschool. So, surveys and that sort of modern "marketing" tool doesn't bother me in the least. God plants a church in a community. Isn't the goal to serve the community at some level (being Christ's hands and feet)? How can you do that without knowing what's going on in the lives of our community? You can say they're trying to "please men" or you can say they're trying to best serve the community they're in. It just depends upon your bias. If some of those reports equally reported those ministry positive aspects that I know exist, I'd probably give them more credibility. But to look at the snippits they give, you could get the idea they're evil incarnate. But clearly, you've studied them way more than I will ever have time to. And it's not worth my time away from my family to study it with any depth. It is equally clear you are convinced by the reports of these people and you trust their analysis and the sources of those analysis. But those reports just don't fit the fruit in my church, which is not simply feel-good, shallow or some man-pleasing event. That fact alone makes me question the vailidity of the condemnation and the accuracy of the reports. I can't ignore what I see first hand, personally. Don't get the idea my church is perfect, it's not, but I've seen it grow incredibly in my time there and not merely in numbers. I know nothing personally about either of these men, so I can't judge their hearts. But I do know what I have seen and it's not as reported. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 943 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, I agree that your belief in the trinity won't save you, but if a person rejects the doctrine of the Trinity as being heretical, I would question whether they were truly born again in the first place. The Trinity is so basic in securing our eternal salvation, that I can't see any true Christian rejecting this doctrine. When we first started this discussion last May about PDL, I really did not have much information and I really wasn't concerned much about Warren. But because of our discussions, it has forced me to do more research, and become a Berean (Acts 17) to see if these things be so. If any of you doubt the power and the impact Mr Warren is having on the world, then you must read this press conference that he had with James Brooks of the NY Times and many other prominent media elites at the Pew forum. www.pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 Now, I will say at the outset that there is much to be applauded by what he says. He is very orthodox on most essential Christian doctrine, and he thinks well on his feet. He had very good answers regarding Jesus being the only way to salvation. At least with this document, you no longer have to deal with false internet rumors about Warren. You can hear him say with his own words whaat he believes, and what his vision is for world evangelism in the next 30 years or so. So I applaud him on all these points. As Christians we must always be fair. But I am astounded and had no idea of what this man's influence on the whole world has already been. In this article you will hear him detail how world leaders from everywhere including Fidel Castro have flocked to meet with him, and he has personally autographed his book for most world leaders, Karl Rove, Pres Bush etc etc. All branches of the US government have done the 40 days of Purpose. Most major corporations have also done it. He details how most sports teams have also participated, including the Boston Red Sox doing the course even while winning the world series. He describes how Rupert Murdoch (Fox newscorp president) hosted this major bash for him when PDL's book sales reached 15 million, when a party was thrown in the prestigious Rainbow room at the top of Manhattan where 350 of the most influential and powerful leaders of the corporate world came and gave him a standing ovation. So, now that the first reformation is really over according to him, how does he describe the second reformation? Since the first reformation just divided Catholics from Protestants, now the second reformation will unite them. He describes this massive world peace plan that he will launch in 2006 called the Global Peace Plan. This will unite all of Christianity and will have unlimited finances to bring peace and healing to many nations. This does sound very exciting. What Christian would not be for World peace and relief of suffering for humanity? I have only one question for Dr. Warren. If Catholics and protestants are thus united, then what gospel will they preach to the world to bring peace? Will it be the Pauline gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone? Or will it be the RCC-SDA gospel of salvation by combining faith and works? Since Warren says that the new reformation will be one of good deeds, then I have serious questions. Will this gospel be teaching people about purgatory, or prayers to Mary, and that you can only come to Christ thru Mary,(the doctrine that the late pope taught)? I would appreciate your feedback on this. There are some interesting implications to all this, that I am trying to sort through. Stan |
