CRN.Info and Analysis

Remember that part in the purpose driven program where Rick Warren said that pastors should do the following:

- lie, manipulate, and breached confidentiality
- remove Sunday School teachers for refusing to back down from their position on the Purpose Driven program, even if it is a confidential and discreet position.
- no longer welcome confidential and discreet dissenters to attend Sunday School
- refused to respond in writing concerning removal of dissenters (which should occur without a vote by the congregation, even if that congregation originally voted to install the discreet dissenter as a teacher and a deacon)
- tell the secret dissenter’s Sunday School class that they were removed for challenging his authority
- have the deacons claim that they were removed temporarily for an investigation they did not conduct
- not allow the congregation to hear the either side of the complaint
- have the discreet dissenter’s fellow deacons cutoff the mediation process with a mediator from the state convention
- make sure the fellow deacons send them a letter stating that they see no evidence of pastoral misconduct or theological issues with Purpose Driven.

Oh wait… none of that is part of the purpose driven program. But apparently one ODM would like to blame their bad purpose driven experience on Mr. Warren personally. I am finding more and more that many who hate the PD program actually hate the experience they had with a pastor implementing the five purposes of the church. They don’t like the way they were treated, being forced to sing new songs, working with new church structures and that five letter word… change.

I mean, basing everything in your church around worship, evangelism, fellowship, discipleship and service should not be all that alarming. It is the growing pains that come with change, and the bad implementation of the five purposes by pastors who truly do not understand it that cause such dissension. So many times, pastors get over zealous with wanting their church to be the next Saddleback, that they make the wrong changes. So, it is one thing to critique the program, it is another thing to critique the program based on how pastors have inappropriately used it.

Plus, I am not at all familiar with this situation, but it is rare for a whole church community to treat an individual in this manner when they are confidential, discreet, respectful and supports the leadership in the midst of their concern. Red flags are always sent up when the pastor, leadership and deacons all find issue with the person who is in disagreement.

Today, Ingrid acknowledged here that the Newsweek article she quoted was wrong when they stated that Rick Warren would be meeting with gay father’s this Sunday. She suggests that Newsweek owes her an apology because she and others trusted their “journalistic soundness”.

Perhaps more importantly, Newsweek owes Rick Warren an apology. Perhaps those of us who were too quick to criticize him for something he had no intention of doing should apologize to him as well.

Last Sunday morning, one of my friends told me to look-up a video she’d seen on GodTube, which I got around to doing.

As an ex-theater major (turned chemical engineer - go figure), I have always been wary of the use of drama in corporate worship settings. In some ways, I think it has been the quality of thought, writing and production often absent - and the feeling of being ‘tacked on’ or ‘disconnected’ from the service, as a whole - that has led to this apprehension.

However, I found myself surprised and moved by this one:

As I hear more and more in my workplace about the power of images over words in current culture, I wonder if well-done elements like this one might have more of a place for effective outreach – when combined with sound teaching, of course – as we look to teach and evangelize, particularly youth…

The important thing, I think, though is to be wary of what we lose in visual presentation, aware of what we gain by it, and that we supplement the visual/experiential with, at least, the bare minimum of exposition to interpret the visual ‘narrative’…

In my time as a Training & Development professional, I learned that one of the ‘rules of thumb’ in the trade is called the “70-20-10 rule”. Teens and adults tend to learn and retain based upon: 70% experience, 20% relationships and 10% expositional/didactic teaching. So, the key to training people is to leverage the 90% that is not in the ‘classroom’ or reading - the use of music and art taps into the 70%…

When you look back at the church, prior to the invention of the printing press and prior to the ability to easily duplicate images, the use of imagery within the architecture and traditions of the church was much more prevalent than the past several hundred years. The use of illumination, as in the Book of Kells, and the use of iconography were ways in which the church used images to convey the truths of the Bible. Because most of the people could not read nor understand Latin, these methods of teaching, learning and experience were effective. However, when worshipers started behaving in ways that worshiped the icons and venerated the images, their usefulness was outstripped. The icons, in and of themselves, were not evil, but for some, they were being used in a way that was so.

In the same way, I see churches who use artistic expressions, displaying truths of Christ, as something that can be very helpful - particularly in light of the ways adults, especially, learn.

The danger lies in idolizing the methods and missing the message.

To demonize the method or to insist the message be expressed in a singular manner is not the proper response. Instead, it takes the involvement of the local shepherd to gauge the pulse of his sheep, and to make adjustments accordingly…