Grace and Law
Posted by Chris L on Oct 9th, 2008
2008
Oct 9
I saw this Hayward cartoon a year or so ago, and it has just kept popping back up into my mind every time I hear the caterwauling about Rick Warren and/or churches that are anything less than “seeker insensitive”…
Beautiful!
October 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I’m not getting your point. My problem with the seeker sensitive movement is that it gets the purpose and definition of a “worship” service all turned around to where it is manward instead of Godward. There are many very gracious anti-Warrenites just as there are many Warren supporters who are jerks. I have moved on (in a very gracious way) from Warrenite churches – twice becoming “Holy Attrition” as some Warrenite apologists officially define it. It can be done. The Seeker Friendly movement has won the day, the victory is yours, so why rub it in? Why harp on the few remaining antiquated hold outs? But, now that that movement is old hat we’ll just have to see what the next exciting “wave” of the “spirit” is. I can’t wait.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
By “few remaing antiquated hold outs” I was referring to Mr. Freuh of course.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Seeker sensitive is misdefined.
The scripture is clear that God is the seeker. If Warren’s minions and Hybels’ syncophants understood this, they would not spend so much time trying to please man!
October 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I agree with Pastorboy… We should not be sensative to those seeking spiritual things… Look at Jesus and how he treated those outside the - oh… wait, never mind!
October 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sycophants…how kind. They are people with individual minds you know John.
Besides, if we’re going to use that word, then we’re all sycophants to someone.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I don’t see anyone here being sycophantic toward RW. Just appreciative of the good things he has done.
However, I can’t say the same for the breathless self-love of the imams. Talk about “man-centered”.
I mean, it’s so good to know that despite Bill Hybels’ demonstrated passion for evangelism, you can look into his heart and know who he is trying to please.
You may not like the methods…even think them misguided, but to constantly assign motivations that you have no right, nor any basis, to assert is just positively lovely.
Thank you. It could really be you in the cartoon.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
On a serious note - Hybels has long ago fessed up to the weaknesses of his methods. That’s more than I can say for…
Anyway, enough dead horse beating - OK PB?
October 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Law and grace cannot exist together.
Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes.
No sinner has EVER been able to keep the law perfectly. Line up the entire human race on the pacific shore of California and command them all to swim to Hawaii (3000 miles). Some will drown immediatley, and some may swim over 100 miles, but ALL will drown.
Case closed.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Rick, that is true in the sense of salvation. However, the Law still has two purposes:
(1) For the lost it is a tutor to lead them to Christ, exposing their sin, their lost state and a need for a savior.
(2) For the saved it instructs one in God’s expectations for holy living and how to live in order to please Him. For example: “Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart . . .” How do I love God? The law tells me. Not to have any other gods before Him, not to take His name in vain, to keep his commandments, etc.
“Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. ” How do I love my neighbor? Thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc.
The Law still has a vital purpose. The problem comes when people try to mix law and grace in obtaining righteousness and justification, which of course is a grave error as you pointed out, but the two are to exist together, just in their proper and intended spheres.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Oh give me a break, Neil That is not what we are talking bout.
Look, What is wrong with the seeker friendly method is that it caters to man and his sensibilities. In many cases, they will not talk about sin, rather, they will reinforce the goodness of man!
Its like a doctor who, upon seeing a child who has stepped on a rusty nail will refuse to give him a tetnaus shot because he is afraid the kid will hate him. Sure, the shot will hurt, but it will save his life. Hybels and Warrens methods are like that Dr, giving candy to a dying child instead of the medicine he needs because they want the child to like them and stay in their church. Sure, many will die without ever bending the knee to Christ, but they will be happy!
October 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
John - those are now commandments to children, they are not laws to citizens.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
And you have the ability to discern the state of all of those in Warren’s and Hybel’s churches? As much as I dislike some of the things in their churches, neither of them deny original sin. You’re just pulling accusations out of your butt.
As far as catering to man’s sensibilities goes. We all do it. It just depends on whether or not the sensibilities you’re catering to are from 500 years ago or today.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am
No Phil, I don’t have the ability. I just have observed many.
I disagree with the fact that we all cater to the sensibilities of man, unless you include communicating in their language. Look, anytime you remove words like sin, law, justice, blood, the cross, hell, judgement and replace them with blanket terms like ‘we all fall short’, people cannot understand that they themselves must repent for their personal sins that have offended God. The seeker sensitive and purpose driven want to get butts in the seats and keep them there, so they desire not to offend their sensibilities. There is the problem.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hmmm…
This sounds very Pelagian to me.
You’re describing one very narrow way to look at the Gospel. In fact, I would almost call a very historically anachronistic way to look at the Gospel. You know, there are 65 other books in the Bible besides Romans.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am
PB,
You are an idolater. You worship particular words, and particular methods of teachings rather than the Living God. While you mouth the words like “salvation by Christ alone” the reality is that you teach and live out “salvation by saying these magic words”.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Bo Diaz,
You do not get saved by saying anything. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, even the faith to do that is provided by God. Don’t try and tell me what I believe, Bo.
And Phil,
Romans is not the only book in the Bible, though it is one of the most theologically deep books ever written, as is the Gospel of John…especially in its Christology. Instead of reading a church growth method and manual, why don’t these seeker sensitive churches model the early church found in Acts in preaching repentance, studying the teachings of the apostles, praying, fellowship all around their community, meeting house to house, sharing goods with one another as there is need, etc.? Because there would be no money, fame, or fortune in it.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
That is a heavy charge to lay against your two brothers.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
More lip service.
You tell us what you believe. Your condemnation of two brothers is based on their not using the words you like. You worship those words and not the Living God.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
A literary flourish. How nice
October 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I just left two words from that quote out and I agree whole heartedly. AMEN! John, preach it brother.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Look, Bo
You do not know what I believe, because I criticize them based on their methods. I do not worship words; it is those who would lead someone in a magic formula prayer at an alter call to receive Christ that believe in magic words; eg. the prayer at the end of the 4 spiritual laws etc.
Though some of their words are false (many of Rick Warren’s, some of Hybels) it is the way that the churches using their methods have forsaken the preaching of the Gospel that bothers me.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Says the man who believes there is only one method to
schreechingsharing the gospel. And has read every Ray Comfort manual on doing it.October 10th, 2008 at 10:57 am
# 21 was me….
I was addressing it to Bo on a different computer!
October 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
chris,
Thats your opinion. I differ in a few parts from Ray’s presentation. But his presentation is based on the way Paul, Peter, John, Philip, and others in the scripture did it…
Which is more than I can say for Bill Bright, modern Billy Graham, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Bill Hybels ( I have read his evangelism books) and Rick Warren.
So, until you and others spend your everyday life preaching the Gospel to every creature in a Biblical way, do not even criticize those who do; one of which (you wouldn’t know this if you didn’t see him do it) is John Piper.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Let me run that through my fundie translator…
Here we go - “You have no right to criticize those I perceive to be on my team, but I have every right to criticize those I perceive to be on your team.”
October 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Well, Ok, but I do so I am more than willing to criticize you. I just shared the gospel with someone yesterday. BTW, your position here is rather defensive.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Uh…not sure what to do with this.
Everyday? Is that the standard?
Biblical way? Is the Romans Road the only way?
October 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Considering all of them did it in different ways, I’m a little skeptical of your claims. Perhaps you should study scripture more.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Pastorboy, I think you are misrepresenting Bill Hybels and Rick Warren in a BIG way. I just came home from the Global Leadership Summit here in Port Elizabeth. Bill Hybels presented the first session and again I was struck by his passion for the unsaved, presenting the gospel to them and his love for the Bible. You say he will not talk about sin but I heard him on several occasions talking about it and then pointing to Christ as the only way to salvation.
I remember two years ago after an interview with a business leader he presented the gospel in a very clear and, in my opinion, confronting way to this man in front of all the 1000’s of delegates. I actually thought to myself that he was not very seeker sensitive in that moment, though he did not do it in a disrespectful manner.
Another time I heard what I thought was one of the best modern day presentations of the gospel from him, explaining how we can never attain the perfect ness of God by doing the law and by failing in the law we realise our need for salvation which is only to be found in Christ. Now isn’t that the way you say it should be done?
Also in one of the last sessions of a previous (I think 2006) GLS he said that pastors should get the message clear and get it out. He continued the spell out substitutionary atonement in a very clear manner.
I am getting the idea you do not really know what the seeker movement is all about. I serve in such a church and let me tell you I have a deep and sincere desire to see unbelievers come to know Christ, trust Him for their salvation and start living Christ centred lives. Just because we choose not to use Christianese does not make the message any less powerful.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
OK, I’ll buy that, but law and grace can (and do) exist together in harmony as long as they are both applied and used in their proper spheres.
BTW you do have a gift for a proper turn of a phrase my friend.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Today in the first session of the GLS Bill Hybels said that he did not give his life (meaning being in ministry with all his heart) to have people living mediocre lives just warming seats in church. He desires to see unbelievers becoming radical followers of Christ living Christ centred lives. Why would a church that just want to keep butts in seats and not offend them do something like the Reveal study and develop programs and methods to move people to become Christ centred?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Although I have had personal bad experiences from churches with RW want-a-bees I have had to temper my judgement on these men. At this point I have repented of trying to ascertain the heart of these men. My main remaining objections however aginst the church growth movement centers around the purpose of a “worship service”. I think a strong argument can be made that the Seeker Sensitive service is built around the sensibilities of man and is man-ward in its design and execution. I think this is a total fallacy as “worship” by definition is the adoration/service to a deity. Therefore, it is just plain logic to me that a “worship” service should be designed around the one worshipped. Everything else is secondary.
“We have 168 hours per week to evangelize, conduct private devotions and private praise. Can we not have one hour per week to **corporately** worship and encourage one another in stead of being entertained?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Eugene. One can read reports about these gentlemen from people like yourself and either totally ignore the facts and maintain an unbalanced and prejudiced view or else have to re-adjust their perceptions. I am in the latter group. Do I agree with the majority of their methodologies? Probably not, but I don’t doubt their sincerity. (Except maybe for RW) he’s too much of a “power player” and attention hound to ring sincere for me.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I guess a decent case could be made that all the RW, Hybel, Driscol wanna-bees who go as far as copying dress, grooming and eyewear, for example, and preach the exact canned sermons can, indeed, legitimately be called sycophants. Just say’n.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’m a Rick Freuh sychophant. Or I would be except except he looks remarkably like a lion from his picture on his blog. I kept getting weird comments about the lion outfit so I just stopped wearing it after a while. Still plagerize his sermons though and throw his name around a lot!
October 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Something struck me as I was reading through the comments. The ODM crowd is generally reformed, meaning (in part) that salvation is from God and only those God elects will be saved. The seeker sensitive crowd is generally Arminian.
Let’s say that the seeker crowd is just plain wrong. What are the etenal ramifications?…NOTHING! God is still going to save the people he’s going to save. So why the fuss over their incorrect methods and theology?
What struck me was the insistance upon certain methods of evangelism (street preaching, etc.). The motivation can’t be to get out and save as many souls as possible (God is only going to save those he has decided in advance to save). So the motivation must be simply obedience - God has told us to witness, so we’re doing it. That’s why results (or lack thereof) don’t concern them. If nobody responds, well…God’s fault. If people are driven away from the faith, well…God’s fault.
But what if the ODM theology is wrong? What if every person actually has the opportunity to come to faith in Jesus? What if, in driving people away from Christ, these evangelists are actually doing eternal damage to lost souls who will now never repent and place their faith in Christ?
October 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Very good points Corey.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
corey,
I’ve said it again and again, but if Calvinists are so sure that we don’t have the ability to choose, why are they so adamant about trying to make me choose to be a Calvinist?
October 10th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Phil - that is checkmate. Why do Calvinists criticize people who preach a watered down gospel, as if that would keep the elect from getting saved? All the elect will be forced to be saved, so sit back and enjoy the ride!
October 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
All very good points, however I focus on Eugene and Corey:
I believe (as is Rick Freuh’s testimony) that God can use anyone and anything to save those who he is going to save. That does not remove my responsibility to be obedient to what I know and have been taught by God in His Word.
That being said, I believe that the Church Worship is the place where we should focus on the living God, lifting up our hearts to worship Him. The question we should ask is whether or not the service of worship is pleasing in His sight. I believe Rick Warren and Bill Hybels began with that notion, but desiring to make the service welcoming to people wherever they are at and desiring to bring them from the crowd into the core so to speak. This is accomplished by discovering the desires of the people in the community (red flag) profiling them and interviewing them to see what they want in a church. (see Saddleback Sam, Purpose Driven Church) Again, the purpose of the Church is to worship God. What does He want? a contrite heart, a broken spirit, one that recognizes there is no hope without Him. The church is made up of Christians unified in the desire to worship God with their whole lives~not just in a one hour orchestrated service of worship with a 29 minute message.
Eugene, I have read many of Hybels books, and I have seen some usefulness in the methods he employs (see Just walk across the room) but what I object to is the idea of creating a service of worship that is human sensitive and me centered- what can I get out of it. I applaud him for his honesty (see REVEAL) but wonder aloud why we need more polls and opinions from men how to get people into the core? Why not go back to the scripture and employ the book of Acts?
I think it is in 1 Corinthians where Paul states something along these lines: When people enter into the fellowship, what they see should make them cry out in repentance, because they see God in the midst of the church. I pray, Eugene, that is true of your church. It is true of very few places that I have observed here in the states, especially when it comes to the majority of modern evangelical churches. What we should be proclaiming in the pulpit is what God has been proclaiming to us in our life of study, prayer, and preparation in the Word and before Him. It should be preached to we as pastors first and foremost in our time of preparation to enter the pulpit.
Corey, Chris, Phil, et al. You accuse me of using methods. When I open air preach, witness one to one, etc. It is an act of worship and obedience, as our whole life should be. But I am not obedient to a man’s methods, if I am not filled with the Spirit of God when I am preaching, it will be of no effect. People will see me, not Him. I do not ever want that. I want to be John the Baptist pointing men to Christ, making the way straight so they can clearly see God.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
John, I think some criticism on Bill Hyblels, Rick Warren, Rob Bell, whoever are legitimate but to misrepresent them like most ODM’s purposely do and Pastorboy did out of ignorance (I assume) is wrong. I feel the same about the ministries of MacArthur and Piper - do not misrepresent them. All of the above mentioned people have wonderful ministries and are being used by God. None of them are perfect but in that the Word of God teaches us to be graceful and fill in where they lack. With critique I have no problem but be honest and be humble (as you are) enough to realise that your own view might be flawed.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I would love someone to answer this question. If an elect person comes to Christ through Rick Warren’s preaching:
* Does that mean Warren is an approved vessel?
* Has the Holy Spirit validated his preaching by making it effective for salvation?
* Couldn’t God use someone He approves of?
* Isn’t the Holy Spirit giving the impression that He works through Warren?
* How confusing is that to the person who got saved when others castigate the very vessel that reached him?
I find the “scortched earth” style of discernment ministry that cannot and will not admit that someone like Warren does any good to be at odds with the open testimony of the Holy Spirit.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Pastorboy, you make some very good points and I think it is true that some people have taken the seeker method to far to the point where it is only about the needs of people. That is not the original intent of the seeker method. As I see it the seeker method is to attract unbelievers to church through the relationships with the congregation where they can hear the Word of God in a way they can understand and relate to it and respond to it. To create an environment where they can connect with God who is already reaching out to them. This is what I pray will happen Sunday in our church when a school choir is singing and their parents will be there, many of them in church the first time in years.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I agree, Eugene.
I think Jesus was pretty seeker sensitive. Scripture tells us it is because of his compassion that people by the masses were drawn to him. He was focused on the need in front of him wherever he went. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind and raised the dead. When preaching to a crowd on a hill he looked at the poor, the weak, the humbled, the persecuted around him and called them “blessed.” To those who were seek he said they will find him. Yeah, Jesus was pretty sensitive to those who seek.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Great questions, corey. I am reminded of Bill Maher’s question to the dude dressed as Jesus in Religulous: What if your wrong?
I am also reminded of Jesus’ words in Luke 12: To those who have been given much, much will be required.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Eugene:
I’m a bit amused as if this is really anything new. Showing my age again when I say that Chuck Smith did this very thing MANY years ago. He was one that actually ministered to the “hippie” culture and that ultimately gave us the Calvalry Chapels. A lot of other people gave up on that culture.
But then, I know that many ODM’s and “arm chairs” don’t see eye to eye with him either.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Chad: That is a complete false dichotomy. I don’t think you will find any ODM (of which I am not one, but have many sympahties with) who disagress with that comment and that is certainly not my argument against the seeker friendly movement. Such things are (or at least should be) central to the charter and actions of any local body of believers. What I , and many others object to, in the seeker friendly movement is the blatant secular marketing tactics that turn the worship service into a circus (sometimes literally) with the preceived, planned and deliberate intent to entertain in order to attract. That is what I object too, not ministering to the lost. Please . Yes, Jesus ministered to the sick and poor. And so should we. What Jesus didn’t do was set up Chariot Displays and put on Greek Plays and acrobat shows inside the Temple Courtyard in order to attract crowds. Again, a total false dichotomy.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Again, it always comes back to the definition of what a worship service is.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
You know, I don’t even have problems with “festivals” and such. But can’t we please have at least one hour per week where we can concentrate on worshipping God with out having to worry about entertaining lost people or carnal Christians? Is that too much to ask?
And as a side note: when one spends hours and hours and days and months planning and producing these events and entertainment venues that does not leave much time for ministering to the poor, sick and needy, does it?
October 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
OK rant over.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It is true Jesus did not put on grand displays such as Greek plays or chariot races. Rather, he did simple things like raising a man from the dead. Jesus was not beyond doing spectacular things to “draw a crowd” that they might know he is the Christ.
Granted, raising the dead and a Greek play are on very different playing fields. I agree with you, John, that the point of worship is to give glory to God and to direct focus off of the self and onto the One who gives us our “self.” You are upset over methods, it would seem, rather than message. We shouldn’t allow method to divide us. My own tastes are not seeker friendly, you might say. However, I am sympathetic to the vacuum they fill. They addresss a need in our culture and I am convinced that pastor’s of these sorts of churches that employ these sorts of methods are doing what they do because they feel so called to do so. If I am a hand of the body of Christ who am I to disparage the shoulder or the foot? Is Christ being proclaimed? Than we should rejoice. Salvation belongs to the Lord, not to my methods. I thank God that he is big enough to meet us exactly where our need is and where we find ourselves in this journey called life. Some people may one day move from a seeker-friendly service into a more traditional worship service that might more fit your tastes. Praise God! Others will continue to feel at home where they are and find their niche and ministry. Praise God!
October 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Well actually no. That is the problem. Where is the spiritual message in entertainment?
Again, that is the problem. Not in the entertainment. It is used as a lure — Bait and switch.
Actually, my tastes tend toward the contemporary. I have little problems with contemporary worship services. I believe each generation should produce its “new songs” to sing unto the Lord in the music styles of their day and culture. I fully recognize both conceptually and practically that different people have different musical tastes and that any style of music is not ontologically wrong in and of itself (well, except maybe Polka). This is not the issue. My problem is with the bait and switch concept and the belief that one has to entertain to attact and keep people. It has nothing to do with the style of music.
Not that we have the time or desire to get into all this again, but I do have problems with churches that take secular songs and just slap “God” or “Jesus” into the lyrics and think it’s “OK” . Like the youth worship leader on You Tube you took “You Spin Me Round Round Round Right Round” and justed added “Jesus, You Spin Me Round” and had the kids take off their socks and spin them around their head and thought that was worship and Christ-honoring. (But that is an opinion). We are not talking style or preferences here. Can not the gifted in the Church not take the time to write Spirit-inspired songs in whatever genre of music they are comfortable with instead of stealing from the world?
October 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Ahh. I see what you are getting at now.
Here is what I think: Where is there not a spiritual message?
Why should the secular world have all the fun? What sort of message do we convey to the world when we pit entertainment and spirituality against each other?
See, I don’t think we need to hold a festival or put on a play and call it one thing and then when that is over say, “Ok, now we are going to do something ’spiritual.’” I would want to convey to my church that everything we do, whether it be singing or playing or acting or dancing or drinking or eating or preaching or kneeling or praying or shooting a game of pool is done to the glory of God and is one way among many ways to celebrate the life God has given us.
Now - can anything “good” be taken to the extreme and be used for corrupt and ungodly means? Sure. But I do not like the idea of setting up a dualism between this and that, with “this” being seen as mere entertainment and “that” being seen as more spiritual.
Frankly, the unchurched world out there could benefit greatly from recognizing that being a “Christian” doesn’t mean you have to despise beauty or the arts or entertainment. I think the reason so many of these churches have sprouted is to add a much needed corrective to the boring, dry, physical-world-hating church that has been dominating the scene for much for much of the last couple hundred years.
October 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Chad,
I understand the sentiment and can be tugged in that direction by arguments such as yours. But there are too many conflated arguments here. The concept of differientating the sacred and profane is a solidly Biblical concept explicit in the Old Testement and confirmed in the New. The concept of sanctification and “apartness” is integral to the Christian world view. I agree wholeheartedly that the concept of dualism, that matter is intrinsically evil, is a heresy. But I can give you many Scriptures which juxtapose the sacred from the profane. What Scriptures justify your world view? (Seriously interested).
“Colossians 3:17 - Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” Does NOT mean that everything we do in the name of the Lord is by defintion good, but on the contrary, is an admonition to ensure that everything we do, do is done in the name of the Lord, i.e., is honoring to Him.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Agreed. But how does one define that “apartness” and who draws the lines? Does this “apartness” only reveal itself in the context of a worship service on Sunday mornings? That is to say, on Sunday’s we show the world how “apart” we are from them by allowing nothing that hints at entertainment into our service but then on Monday we join the world by going to a movie or a play or a concert or a football game or whatever. On Sunday’s we show how “apart” we are by signing music this way and by that person and then on Monday we sing a very different tune and that is just fine. See the problem? I see a real problem in defining our “apartness” on what we do or do not do in the context of a worship service.
Now, if our “apartness” is a result of who I and you and my neighbor call “Lord” than we are on to something, IMO. When we enter into the life God is calling us into we become a “new creature.” If that means anything at all I think at the very least it should mean that how we see things from the way the world sees things is different. Wouldn’t you agree? So it is in this sense that I would want to stress that what happens in worship should adjust our imaginations and allow us to see ALL of life as gift and to begin to see even the “secular” through the eyes of the “spiritual.”
That requires some unpacking, to be sure.
One more thing, though. You bring up differentiating the sacred and the profane. I think we do need to practice discernment in this. But at this point I think you would agree that we have moved beyond the abstract and the philosophy of methods and are entereing the realm of the particular. Once we begin talking “sacred” vs. “profane” we must than begin to ask, which parts? You mention that you are fine with contemporary music. Cool. But as you very well know there are many, many sincere Christians who have a real problem with that. THey would call it “profane.” You and I would not doubt disagree with that. So we are back to square one: Who decides what is sacred and profane?
peace.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I realize that in asking this question there are no shortage of readers here who will gladly answer, “I do.”
October 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I do.
October 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Can someone show me where “the profane” is delineated from “the sacred” in the NT?
Can someone also explain what “profane” means in the OT?
I’ll warn you ahead of time…if sacred vs. profane is just another way of saying “moral ethics” vs “immoral ethics” to you…then I don’t think we’ll be able to have a conversation without you doing some background work/reading.
October 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
nc-
Why ya gotta go bringing the Bible and it’s “real” meanings into this?
October 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Chad,
Just the very fact that you would watch Religulous and bring it into a conversation speaks volumes.
Why would you waste your money on such blasphemy?
I am sure a kid in africa could have used that $7.50 to eat for a week.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
PB-
It is sad that of everything said in the last many posts that is all you can come away with.
Just to ease your troubled mind a bit, John - I have not seen the movie. The part I quoted is on every preview that has been played.
That is not to say I won’t see it - in fact, I will when it comes out on DVD (hard to go to a movie when you have 4 kids - two of which are from the Africa you mention). I think it is important to have some working knowledge of what the rest of the world is watching when it comes to religion.
Thanks for your deep concern over how I spend my money, John.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Great question… and furthermore, how can any judge the motives of another. Just because something in a service is entertaining does not mean the sole message is entertainment. ‘Course, if those doing the judging didn’t assign motives, they would not be left with much.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Boy John, I believe you owe Chad an apology. Go to his website and see his wonderful family and you might feel embarrased. No American should ever throw stones about wasting money, we all stand in need of God’s grace.
I do not attend the movie theatre, does that make me right with God?
Answer - No.
Chad - Another opportunity for me to express my admiration for you and your family. Because of my health I cannot travel overseas, but my partner and I started an African ministry ten years ago. We could all do more.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Yes…
praise you, pastorboy.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Rick-
Thank you for those kind words. I pray God’s blessings on you and your ministry, here and abroad. I agree we could all do more but it nice to see so many doing something.
peace to you.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
PB,
Ouch. That was painful to read. Maybe you should sit a few rounds out. Maybe let some other people fight the good fight.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“It is sad that of everything said in the last many posts that is all you can come away with.”
All that’s been said??!!
The only way all of you could say less is to keep posting.
Pastorboy has allowed himself to get drawn into your over-generalizations, rhetoric and well just plain sophomoric drivel.
I also tire of the false characterizations that the “arm chair odms” do nothing. In all probability they do more than you, or Warren and Hybels combined.
I must have missed the story where Jesus did the important job of moderating the debate between Herod and Pilate.
Watch the world go to hell while you are all figuring out new and creative ways to “engage” the culture.
Btw,why is Jesus spoken of as if He were merely some guy (presumably monastic and mystic) who found God? He is God incarnate.
Interesting that the cartoon associates the law with satan. I thought Paul said the Law is holy, just and good. Must be one of those non-inspired portions of scripture which we interpret through bad hermeneutic. You know the hermeneutic that YOU do not use or approve of.
But then that would make you to be exactly what you condemn.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Yeah, Chad is great for doing this wonderful work for these kids orphans etc. We all admire him. I admire the work he does.
I just cannot understand why anyone who claims the name of Christ would watch blasphemy!
I do not want to steal the thread, but that is like saying that I should go to the adult bookstore to see what is so bad about pornography.
You all are intelligent people, How can you really justify that?
October 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I believe he said he has not seen the movie. I would not waste my money, but you and I have watched that comedian on television just to hear how an atheist thinks. So how can we watch television at all?
Are you suggesting Chad and others would watch it and agree? Of course not. Have you studied Mormonism in Bible College? Why study such blasphemy? Jesus allowed the devil to challenge Him with blasphemy and He responded.
Not only is it a mountain out of a molehill, to use the African ophnas to indict his use of money is over the top. WE ALL LET ORPHANS DIE WHILE WE SPEND MONEY FOR ENTERTAINMENT.
There, level playing field.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I actually don’t watch Bill Maher. I pray for Him, however.
No, I studied Mormonism at the feet of my Mentor, Dr. Walter Martin by reading his book, along with countless others. (Including Richard Abanes)
I do not actually spend a lot of money on entertainment. less than 1/36 of the money God provides for me on entertainment. I do however give 100% of my officiating (that is refereeing) cash back to the church and ministries overseas. This amounts to probably three times (at least) the amount I spend on entertainment. That being said, I still don’t think I do enough.
I am housing an abused kid from our community, and until he went to college, I housed another one. That being said, I know I still have room in my home to help others. I don’t thnk I do enough.
I can never repay what God has done for me, but what I can do is be obedient to Him where I know there is a clear word on what we need to do.
I forgot Chad had kids from Africa. That was over the top. The point was, why would anyone ever listen or watch Bill Maher and his utter blasphemy? I still think it is wrong to watch that and try to justify it.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am
PB,
The comparison of watching a Bill Maher clip to pornography is that one cannot simply view pornography (except perhaps in limited circumstances) without *engaging* in it. The same is not true of blasphemy, idolatry, pride, and other terrible sins. So while engaging in pornography is a sin, watching someone blaspheme, or commit.an act of idolatry, is not.
The point is that we, by living in this world, must at times witness these things. It is reality. We are called, though, to be in the world, not of it.
Question: I have worked with the justice system before, and have, as a part of my duties, witnessed terrible things (even pornographic). Was that sin? What about when a Doctor examines another man’s wife? Is that sin?
The mere fact that we may witness certain things does not strike me as sufficient for our sinning. I see things more as a matter of the heart.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am
ummm….yeah…PB has a great track record when it comes to blasphemy and its definition.
October 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Well all I am trying to say is just because something is done at chuch does not make it right or pleasing to the Lord.
October 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Chad I see, partly, where you are coming from. But all things are not of equal value. Even in the secular world distinctions are made. We set aside time for myriad of activities, some more important than others. Hopefully a corporate worship service is a time set aside to concentrate on God. It is (or should) be distinct. That is not to discount we should live holy lives 7 days a week, or worship God in thought and action 24/7. But it is legitimate to set aside a particular time for corporate worship with other believers and yes this time is to be “different”. I disagree that a football game, for example, should be a considered a worship experience (unless you make your team an idol)
So, yes we sing a different tune on Monday and that **is** fine (unless that tune has lryics not becomming a professor of Christ). To make everyday special is to make no day special.
October 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Well we can start with the words of Jesus: Mat 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
October 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
PB-
Words escape me.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
John - I agree. But once again we are moving into the realm of the particular and making judgment calls about what is “distinct” and what is not. Like I said, some people would claim our allowance of contemporary music is far to “worldly” and not making us look “distinct” enough. Others will say that having a drama or a dance or whatever is going too far. See my point?
You must not be a Pittsburgh Steeler fan
I agree that Raiders fans do not think of football as worship at present.
If I were to push back on this just a bit I could say that to make one day special is to make all others less than special. Rom. 14:5-6 seems to give some wiggle room in this.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
John, why do you suppose that Jesus is speaking of the difference of profance vs. sacred in this passage?
My understanding of this is that the “dog” is the Gentile and Jesus is referring to the treasure that is found in Israel as being from whence salvation comes.
As such, don’t give it away like a whore.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
John Hughes that is the full context of the passage. Not really what was asked about “what is profane”.
Additionally that passage, even from the isolated verse, doesn’t indicate what is sacred it only indicates what we shouldn’t do with it. Now I’m certain that the knee jerk response, from some, will be “Jesus is sacred so you shouldn’t see blasphemous movies” to which I would respond “See that man he hangs out with prostitutes and tax collectors, surely he can’t not be the Messiah.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
hmmm…
That passage does not answer my question…especially given it’s context.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Maybe we should start with the question about how to define “sacred” from the OT and then go from there.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Many of you will be familiar with Serene Jones. I am reading her essay entitled What’s Wrong With Us? found in William Placher’s Essentials of Christian Theology and she has this to say about the law:
I like that.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
In the world but not of it….
If we love the world, and the things in the world, the love of the Father is not in us….
October 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Then that means you waste 1/36th of the income which could keep some starving Africans alive.
BTW - I only spend .0651 of my income on entertainment.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I love the people in the world. And God’s creation. Therefore I don’t separate myself from either. I walk in the saving power and grace of Christ to reach as many as possible.
Isolation is not sanctification. Unfortunately many Christians assume that that is the case.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Yes, but that does not mean we walk into a place where we sit without engaging in conversation being brainwashed by Bill Maher.
I can see going into a Bar and having a diet coke and witnessing to people in the bar by engaging them in conversation. Going to Religioulous? Only to open-air preach to the lines.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Chris, that is out of context. How is it loving anyone to watch a movie?
Oh, I suppose you are loving your flesh?
October 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
My sister-in-law is an atheist. She went to see the movie yesterday.
She called me today to ask my thoughts on the movie. It helped me have a coherent conversation with her.
What was out of context? I didn’t quote anything.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
PB-
I’m afraid you are just so out of touch.
If I decide to watch Religulous or anything else like that it is so that I can be educated and actually have a clue when asked by the members of my church or youth or people at school a question pertaining to it. This is a movie about a reporter asking questions about faith. It would be nice to know that pastor’s in the world today aren’t ignorant to what is going on.
Your judgmental attitude towards myself or anyone else who wants to be fully informed is uncalled for.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Maybe confident enough in my spirit to know that my flesh has been beaten into submission.
Don’t judge me John.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I’ve been an umpire for a lot of years and used to run two soccer official leagues. I’d love to see John Chisham as an official. I bet he’s almost a-typical. I wonder how many ejections he tosses around. I’d love to see the evaluations.
Random, I know.
Chris–I called you back
October 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Regarding the passage from the Sermon on the Mount, I would say that it’s a bit nearsighted to say that Jesus was simply saying something about personal morality. If you look at the Sermon as a whole, coherent message compared to the other messages Jews were hearing from different groups of the day, it seems that Jesus is trying to get His audience to see how one can really live out the heart of the Torah. It’s not through violence as the Zealots wanted. It’s not through renewed nationalism and rule-keeping. And it’s not through being just like Rome. It’s by letting God’s law be written on your heart.
So Jesus isn’t introducing a new standard as much as He’s explaining the true heart of the old one. The heart of the Torah was that Israel be separate, yes. But it was to be separate for the benefit of the world, not in judgment of it.
By the way, if a non-Christian asked me to see Religuous with him, I probably would go, even though I dislike Bill Maher. Who knows what doors might open?
October 12th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
PB,
What I find so filthy about your accusations is that we are talking about a movie that purports to offer arguments about the futility of faith. How does that appeal to the flesh of a Christian? Why on earth would a Christian watch such a film other than to knock down such foolish arguments?
I can see reasonable debates as to whether it is befitting a Christian to watch some mindless entertainment. But with Bill Maher, if a Christian is choosing to watch, I will charitably interpret such a decision as a desire to contend earnestly for the faith.
And you compare that to pornography? Reprehensible.
October 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
yes…brainwashing…cuz Chad would just sit there like an automaton, taking whatever comes out of Bill Maher’s mouth as gospel truth.
sheeeeeeyeeeeeeesh….
seriously, PB, you go on and on about blasphemy, but your insistence on knowing the inner motivations of others materially arrogates to yourself the role of God.
Talk about blasphemy–per your own working definition of it.
But I get it…if you don’t say “the words” you can act any way you want.
yikes.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
what I love is that if I wrote:
your insistence on knowing the inner motivations of others materially arrogates to yourself the role of God.
this way:
bucking for a spot on the Trinity?
THAT would give him an aneurism.
form over substance…
shallow, shallow, shallow…
October 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
nc, to be fair, I only do that when reading your posts.
oops…..I think I just dribbled on my bib.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:02 am
M.G.
I as not comparing it to pornography
Talk about non-charitable reading…
I said I don’t have to go into an adult bookstore to see what the filth is all about..I know it is filthy and I don’t have to go in and see it for myself.
If a non-Christian asked me to see it with him or her, I probably would. I would hope that they would have an open conversation with me afterward. But I would still preach in the lines!
Joe, I have tossed one person from a game in this last season. Just for your records. As far as evaluations, I keep getting asked back, so….But the thing is it is good to not be an emergent umpire, because you have to have an opinion based upon the rules of the game. They don’t change, and we cannot have a conversation about them….
October 13th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Talk about not understanding the metaphor…
Actually, if there were no need to discuss the rules of the game, there wouldn’t be any need for umpires. It’s the umpire’s job to interpret the rules of the game to the best of his ability.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Not wanting to do a huge extrapolation here but I would I would hazard a guess that like most men you struggle or have struggled with lust, masturbation, and pornography. Which is my point exactly…allow each of us to determine what causes us to stumble and not project our struggles onto others. I would never walk into an adult bookstore to witness but I would see Religilous to be a more effective witness.
Anybody can make a slippery slope argument John. It’s easy to do. I choose to believe you’re more intellectual honest than that. Maybe not.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Chris is right. John, you are comparing apples to oranges and then calling them lemons. I don’t need to be in a porn store to be able to discuss the destructive nature of pornography with a Christian or non-Christian. I have ZERO, count them, ZERO, of my parishoners approaching me and asking me for my opinion on the lastest porn movie and how it relates to the questions they also have about God.
I cannot say the same thing about this movie. One of the reasons I will watch it is because I am interested to find out who Maher goes to with his questions. The clips I have seen he asks some fairly weighty questions, questions that Christians have been wrestling with for centuries and have come to different conclusions over. I am curious if he asks anyone who has given these questions some serious, theological thought or if he picks on just the fringe guy or gal who goes around dressed up like Jesus.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Chris
I am saying I would never see a movie like that for entertainment. Can I handle it? Sure, I speak with people like Bill Maher like every day, and it does not change my views on Christ.
But would I see it? Is it pure? is it noble? is it of good report? Does it magnify Jesus?
I guess we must individually ask these questions and honestly answer them. Again, if it is for the benefit of a relationship where I am able to witness to someone…sure, I would go.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:26 am
…I should add to this: Of the guy or gal who stands outside movie theatres with a bullhorn.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Chad,
I think that clip is taken in the Holy Land Experience in Orlando…
October 13th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Chad, if you ever see me with a bullhorn preaching, I give you the right to slap me.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I mean Chris
October 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I am trying to understand, John, why if you say the above you would be so thoughtless to say this to me:
October 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Well, you’re in luck - I’m a pacifist.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
And ya’ll don’t have to see the movie to have a coherant understanding of it.
Ex: Maher asked Jesus ‘what if your wrong?’ How would you answer that question?
Problem solved.