Wallstreet journal on Rick Warren
- Thread starter ReformedWretch
- Start date
- Status
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Read this yesterday via an emailed pdf.
In a word: Yikes!
There's nothing new in this. I was exposed to this stuff in the early 80's and was tempted by intermittently until the early 90's. If memory serves, we heard from a young church planting pastor in Lake Forrest named Rick Warren.
It's nothing but a confusion of the power politics of this world with the Kingdom of God.
There is a place for "power," it's in the "civic kingdom," which is a covenant of works, a legal realm.
The church, however, is not that place. It is the kingdom of God, the charter of which is the covenant of grace - with the possible exception of the final step of discipline. It's not a place for manipulating folk into doing what you want. It's not a place for ministers to salve their egos by turning their ministries to focus on "buildings, bodies, and budgets."
The church of Christ is THE place for preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and discipline (the final step is perhaps the kingdom of the left hand - Berkhof's phrase).
I know from experience that the motive for this business of manipulation and power politics is often the need of ministers to feel important and successful. Very few congregants ever tell a minister: "say, preaching the gospel is the most important thing." Very few ministers tell other ministers that. When they gather, they too often talk about B, B, and B. They compare numbers. Some of that's normal as these things might give some objective measure of what's happening in the congregation, but it creates a culture that pushes ministers to "grow" their congregations by almost any means possible.
The church is not an extension of the minister. The church is Christ's. Full stop. The minister is a minister and nothing more or less.
Here endeth today's second rant.
rsc
In a word: Yikes!
There's nothing new in this. I was exposed to this stuff in the early 80's and was tempted by intermittently until the early 90's. If memory serves, we heard from a young church planting pastor in Lake Forrest named Rick Warren.
It's nothing but a confusion of the power politics of this world with the Kingdom of God.
There is a place for "power," it's in the "civic kingdom," which is a covenant of works, a legal realm.
The church, however, is not that place. It is the kingdom of God, the charter of which is the covenant of grace - with the possible exception of the final step of discipline. It's not a place for manipulating folk into doing what you want. It's not a place for ministers to salve their egos by turning their ministries to focus on "buildings, bodies, and budgets."
The church of Christ is THE place for preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and discipline (the final step is perhaps the kingdom of the left hand - Berkhof's phrase).
I know from experience that the motive for this business of manipulation and power politics is often the need of ministers to feel important and successful. Very few congregants ever tell a minister: "say, preaching the gospel is the most important thing." Very few ministers tell other ministers that. When they gather, they too often talk about B, B, and B. They compare numbers. Some of that's normal as these things might give some objective measure of what's happening in the congregation, but it creates a culture that pushes ministers to "grow" their congregations by almost any means possible.
The church is not an extension of the minister. The church is Christ's. Full stop. The minister is a minister and nothing more or less.
Here endeth today's second rant.
rsc
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
...hmm - obviously an article written from a hostile POV, with no balancing voice.
Are we so willing to swallow the pagan media's dreck and desire to promote controversy as they attack our brethren?
What if this was an attack article on the introduction of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist churches?
-pax-
-JD
Acts 2:46-47
46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
[Edited on 9-7-2006 by jdlongmire]
Are we so willing to swallow the pagan media's dreck and desire to promote controversy as they attack our brethren?
What if this was an attack article on the introduction of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist churches?
-pax-
-JD
Acts 2:46-47
46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
[Edited on 9-7-2006 by jdlongmire]
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
JD,
I credit the article because it resonates with my experience with the church growth movement. I read widely in the literature back in the late 80's and early 90's and was exposed to it before then.
This stuff really happens. I've seen it first hand -- no, I've DONE IT. I've tried the planned "dramatic turn" in the sermon; the "strategic planning" (I'm not against all planning) wherein the sorts of calculations that were described were made. This is the approach counseled by lots of the CG lit. It's regarded as a "natural law" that can be applied by anyone anywhere.
What is shocking or should be is that folks in the business community -- who invented or revised (Machiavelli invented it!) the stuff that these folks are doing can see so clearly what it is and we have such trouble.
This piece did not strike me as a "hit piece." It struck me as an honest accounting of some less than honest dealing in "evangelical" churches.
As to the article you pasted. The errors therein are so many it's hard to know where to begin.
The "creeds" v "deeds" paradigm goes back to 19th century German liberalism. Obviously, what Warren knows about the Reformation couldn't fill a thimble!
That the Reformation "split" the church is nonsense. The proliferation of denominations didn't begin until we began to drink at the well of Modernity a good century or more after the Reformation. At the end of the 16th century, there were Reformed, Lutherans, and Papists (and some sectarians, but that had been true for 1000 years).
The notion that we can unite around "deeds" v creeds is just another version of "no creed but Christ." I think Rick thinks he's about to get left behind by the emerging church.
The reason he speaks to 1000's of pastors is because they're all DESPERATE to replicate his "success." I know that desperation. It's not healthy, to say the least.
So, evangelicals and catholics can get together on essentials? Apparently justification isn't an essential! This is the same RW who wrote Modern Reformation to say, "Hey, I'm with you guys. I read you every month and I'm on the same page...." Whatever.
We're all betting our life...? Pascal's wager anyone? "Men of Israel, you're all betting your life on something, wouldn't you like to bet that this Jesus whom you crucified, God has made him Lord and Christ? What have you got to lose?"
Stephen: "Go ahead and stone me, I'm betting on Jesus...."
Right.
rsc
I credit the article because it resonates with my experience with the church growth movement. I read widely in the literature back in the late 80's and early 90's and was exposed to it before then.
This stuff really happens. I've seen it first hand -- no, I've DONE IT. I've tried the planned "dramatic turn" in the sermon; the "strategic planning" (I'm not against all planning) wherein the sorts of calculations that were described were made. This is the approach counseled by lots of the CG lit. It's regarded as a "natural law" that can be applied by anyone anywhere.
What is shocking or should be is that folks in the business community -- who invented or revised (Machiavelli invented it!) the stuff that these folks are doing can see so clearly what it is and we have such trouble.
This piece did not strike me as a "hit piece." It struck me as an honest accounting of some less than honest dealing in "evangelical" churches.
As to the article you pasted. The errors therein are so many it's hard to know where to begin.
The "creeds" v "deeds" paradigm goes back to 19th century German liberalism. Obviously, what Warren knows about the Reformation couldn't fill a thimble!
That the Reformation "split" the church is nonsense. The proliferation of denominations didn't begin until we began to drink at the well of Modernity a good century or more after the Reformation. At the end of the 16th century, there were Reformed, Lutherans, and Papists (and some sectarians, but that had been true for 1000 years).
The notion that we can unite around "deeds" v creeds is just another version of "no creed but Christ." I think Rick thinks he's about to get left behind by the emerging church.
The reason he speaks to 1000's of pastors is because they're all DESPERATE to replicate his "success." I know that desperation. It's not healthy, to say the least.
So, evangelicals and catholics can get together on essentials? Apparently justification isn't an essential! This is the same RW who wrote Modern Reformation to say, "Hey, I'm with you guys. I read you every month and I'm on the same page...." Whatever.
We're all betting our life...? Pascal's wager anyone? "Men of Israel, you're all betting your life on something, wouldn't you like to bet that this Jesus whom you crucified, God has made him Lord and Christ? What have you got to lose?"
Stephen: "Go ahead and stone me, I'm betting on Jesus...."
Right.
rsc
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Dr. Scott - do you agree with this statement?
-JD
[Edited on 9-7-2006 by jdlongmire]
-JD
[Edited on 9-7-2006 by jdlongmire]
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What do you think is the source of the desperation?
-JD
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I have no idea what the good Dr. will answer, but I disagree with the quote you posted. I don't care who said it, unless it was Jesus.
JasonGoodwin
Puritan Board Sophomore
Two things.
First of all, the New Yorker and the American Prospect are not the kind of publications that would be considered "friendly" to Christians -- unless they're in agreement with them. About the only one that comes to mind is that prominent heretic John Shelby Spong, and he is certainly unorthodox (to say the least).
Second, notice that they went after someone whose theological soundness isn't there. He knows the basics, but not the fundamentals. Had they interviewed guys like RC Sproul, John MacArthur, etc., the outcome would have been radically different. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but they knew who they were going after to get this interview done.
Oh, BTW. Let no one assume that the WSJ is a conservative publication. Far from it.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Some would say that you are being fairly narrow in your interpretation of the Reformation's historical impact on the church - splits may have narrow beginnings, but far-reaching consequences.
-JD
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
It's worth reading the articles below on the incorrect attribution of that quote to Augustine:
In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity
Prehaps the biggest problem with this slogan is that almost everyone who uses or hears it has a different definition of 'essentials' and 'non-essentials'. Depending on how you define those things the actual meaning of the phrase can vary significantly, I think.
Prehaps the biggest problem with this slogan is that almost everyone who uses or hears it has a different definition of 'essentials' and 'non-essentials'. Depending on how you define those things the actual meaning of the phrase can vary significantly, I think.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
- Status
