CRN.Info and Analysis

I woke up this morning to this. I have to say it wasn’t the best thought as I sipped my extra dry cappuccino at Pete’s Coffee and Tea. I actually began to feel incredibly sorry for the many people who read this and will actually believe it. I mean, imagine walking through life wondering if the purpose God has for you is a good one, or one that will lead to total destruction. How would that change how we live… in complete and udder fear of the future. I mean, life becomes one big turn of the dice. Will God give me a good purpose in life, or will He not?

You see, this is the God of illogical predestination. He randomly chooses some to have a good purpose in life, and randomly chooses some who will not. And, you will / can never know which one he will choose for you. We are simply pawns on some divine chess board.

Now, we may not have the ideal life by human standards. I am sure that Jim Elliot was not planning on being speared to death, leaving his family behind at such a young age. But was his purpose still good? Sure. Hundreds came to the faith. And, if you ask Elisabeth Elliot if she has any regrets over the situation, she would probably tell you the same. His life had a beautiful purpose. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. was probably not planning on being assassinated. But the good and blessed purpose of His life has left ripples in eternity. For those that follow the Lord, there is a great purpose for our lives (and Rick Warren would agree that following God is the prerequisite for having a good purpose in life).

If course, the ironic thing is that most of the people who would hold to this view probably believe that they all have a good purpose in life. This poster and ideology would only apply to anyone other than themselves and their pack of Christian friends.

Over at Apprising Ministries, Ken Silva responds to a letter from a reader. Here are a few excerpts that are quite telling of his attitude when it comes to his status

The following is based on an unsolicited email I received here at Apprising Ministries. Please understand that I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach [insert typical Emerging Church whining here], etc. [emphasis mine]
What I wish to bring out is how easy, and I’ll argue arrogant as well, it is for people to simply disregard the teaching of someone like myself who has been studying the fields of apologetics, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years….

You said: “I was very surprised to see your negative views on Christian meditation in the article CHRISTIAN MEDITATION WITH MANTRA: DOM JOHN MAIN.” So let me put it another way: I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers. [emphasis mine]

My dad always told me that you could tell alot about someone based on how they respond to correction or constructive criticism. This correspondence to Apprising was in no way instructional or a harsh rebuke. It sounded like an honest reader that was trying to understand where Silva was coming from. Most of the email was actually the reader asking him questions. But, Ken strikes back with his lofty credentials and how a man of his status should not be quickly instructed. How did Silva know that this reader had not spend some time looking at the Apprising articles and made an educated and simply inquisitive inquiry. On top of that, he sends such mixed statements: no pastor is above reproach, but people should not instruct someone who is a pastor-teacher in this manner.

Anyhow, this all too telling of the attitude of both Apprising and CRN:
We are educated, anointed and experienced, therefore we get to criticize whoever we want, whenever we want. And, you better not say anything about it.

When I saw Chris P. was going to post his argument(s) against a universal application of the Imago Dei I was intrigued… this is such an assumed doctrine in Christianity that I was stunned the first time I read someone write that only those who are born-again have the Imago Dei. After reading part one I was disappointed and not a little bit confused at the non-sequitur logic.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and/or rebuttals.

There is a lot of teaching that all men currently exist as God’s image and likeness., i.e. that “divine spark” is found in all men. There are those who teach God exists in all creation. Everything, and everyone, is essentially good. Everything is beautiful in its own way……….What exactly does that mean? - CP

Here we find the first flaws in the argument. It is sort of a straw-man. That some teach that there is a divine spark in all humans, that others teach that God exists in all creation, that still others teach that everything and everyone is essentially good is true. It is also moot to the question. The misapplication of a doctrine, the misinterpretation of a passage bears no weight on the doctrine or the passage itself. The Dispensational claim that Covenant Theology may lead to anti-Semitism neither argues for Dispensationalism nor against Covenant Theology. It is moot, and not a good start.

God made man in His image and “likeness” by creating him as male and female, and then giving “them” dominion over creation. So man is like God in being male and female, and in asserting dominion, or rule, over creation. CP

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” - but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means. These may be descriptive; they may just be the order in which things happened. Therefore any argument built on this interpretation is only as strong as the interpretation itself.

God does not exist in the created things around us. He does not exist within fallen man. That is what Romans 1 is all about. God only exists in the new creation, i.e. Jesus Christ the head (chief authority), and in His Body, the ekklesia, and ultimately in the new heavens and new earth. - CP

The teaching that God exists in all creation, or that all creation is part of God is called panentheism (god in all) and pantheism (all is god), respectively. And it is false. But does God only exist within the new creation? Of course not. God exists separate from all creation – current or new. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he will be the ultimate authority of the new heaven and new earth, but this is not another way (cf. the i.e.) of saying God only exists in the new creation. God is separate from creation, now and forever.

So death is the state of all mankind who are outside of Christ. Therefore Christ’s atoning death on the cross not only satisfies the requirement of the Mosaic covenant regarding sins, forgiveness, and deliverance,, i.e. the Passover, it also fulfills God’s (His Law) judgment on man, based on Adam’s transgression of the covenant, which is death. -CP

What death are we referring to in Adam’s transgression – physical, spiritual, both? It cannot be physical, i.e. that only those born again will be physically resurrected since all will be resurrection, those in Christ and those not… some to everlasting joy others to everlasting punishment. To say otherwise, to say only those in Christ are physically resurrected would be to embrace annihilationism.

The resurrection then is essential, which is why Paul defends it as fact so aggressively in 1 Cor 15. It is through the death and resurrection that we exit the old creation, and enter the new. Jesus said, in answer to the Sadducees trick question, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so he is the God of the living not the dead. That would mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are participants in the resurrection and thus the new creation. (1 Peter 4:1-6)They are “the living”. So are we who are now called the Sons of God because of the second Adam.- CP

OK – no problem there… but I need to include it because of…

This would the mean that “imago dei” is found only in Christ, the new creation, and in His body the church. We, who are “born again” are imago dei. Imago dei is not found in unregenerate mankind. Unregenerate man is dead (literally) in the sins of Adam. (Romans 6: 4-13) He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is only found in His Son, who is alive forevermore, Amen.

What’s that noise I hear? Oh, it’s your transmission fallen apart as you grind the gears shifting too fast from one thought to a supposed conclusion. Where is the connection between the need for the resurrection and the Imago Dei only being found in believers, in the new creation, in the church? That God is the God of the living proves that He is the God of the living. That the resurrection is necessary proves that the resurrection is necessary – no connection was made to the Imago Dei. I suspect no connection was made because there is no connection to these truths and the residence of the Imago Dei.

So, part one fails to prove that only the regenerate possesses the image of God. It fails because it is built on a spurious interpretation of the meaning of the Imago Dei. It fails because it relies on the buttresses of the false and straw-man doctrines of pantheism and panentheism both of which are moot to the argument. It fails because it claims God exists only in the new creation – which is not only false, but is itself panentheism in the future. And it fails because it never makes the connection between God being the God of the living, the need for the resurrection and the limited Imago Dei.

Maybe part two will be more convincing.

*** UPDATE *** June 30

Chris P. has posted part 2 of why the Imago Dei resides only in the regerate.  It consist with a list of Scriptures interspersed with commentary and “The conclusion is that Imago Dei is seen only in the new creation. Those who are born again from above, i.e. the Body of Jesus Christ.”  It was rather an odd process to read the Scriptures Chris P. posted, agree with a lot of his commentary on them, then reach the summation that it all proved his conslusion… maybe if I try a little harder I’ll see the link.  Usually I can follow an argument even if I disagree with it.

Bottom line, I am still unconvinced (but now confused at the flow of logic or lack thereof), and dissappointed that he never dealt with Genesis 9.

I think Chris P. confuses good works that reflect the Father and/or Christ with the Imago Dei… I’ll have to think about that.

In a recent post over at Slice, Ingrid returns to a common theme - music. Her take is that certain styles of music are acceptable and certain styles are not - and this seems to apply to everyone. She offers a polemic by her husband to make her point.

The essay by Tom Schlueter reminded me of the comments by John MacArthur regarding the wearing of suits in church. On the one hand both the opinion of MacArthur and the opinion of Schlueter make sense… they even have some validity. Yet the shared flaw that renders their opinions incapable of being applied universally is their ethnocentric position.

In other words, their instructions may have value – in their narrow context. The problem is they both elevate their preferences to universal codes that all must follow.

For example: Tom Schlueter gives two examples of purely instrumental brass music – in the style of swing and fanfare, respectively. In the first “The trumpets led the brass in a clear call to listeners: get up and dance” the other calls the listeners to “Come and worship God.”

His conclusion: The [fanfare] brass in the second example tells us there is royalty present. The percussion at the end of the fanfare speaks not of dance and flesh, but of honor and respect and reverence. Different message entirely. And he is right – swing brass bids us come and dance, fanfare brass bids us recognize authority and honor.

But his application is flawed. He rightly differentiates the two biddings, but then sets up a false dichotomy – that honor and respect are valid modes of worship, but celebration and dance are of the flesh. His conclusion of swing, if used as a call to worship would be “Get up and dance… Women should start flaunting their stuff in front of men on the dance floor. This would not be worship at all, but rather a gross insult to the Almighty.”

I’ve been in worship services where people danced – I doubt God was insulted.

The problem is not one of style of music, but context and assumption. First the assumption, Schlueter first assumes dance is fleshly and swing calls women to flaunt their stuff – this I will summarily dismiss. The context is worthy of discussion.

Tom Schlueter uses a 9-11 memorial as an example of appropriate music – solemn music would be appropriate, a Broadway tune… not so. I agree. And if the point of worship is the “honor and respect and reverence” of God, then a fanfare might work. Where he fails is the recognition that maybe the point of worship is (at times) to dance and celebrate. And in this swing may work well.

If Schlueter had stuck to an argument that music should evoke appropriate responses given the situation of worship, then I could have agreed. But he could not, he had to insert his cultural version of what is appropriate in style and overlay those expectations on us all.

what happens when your poster boys for truth, doctrine and all that is good in the world begin to live a purpose driven life? Well, you have “no choice but to issue this warning to the body of Christ” [link added] Looks like Greg Laurie is joining forces with Rick Warren, and the ODMs are not too happy. This is one crazy case of guilt by association.

story submitted on our submissions page by Richard Abanes

That if you:

A. confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”

B. believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,

you will be saved.

-The Scriptures

Rick Warren’s Gospel presentation from PDL:

First believe God loved you and made you for His purposes. Believe that God has chosen to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you. Believe that no matter what you’ve done, God wants to forgive you. Receive Jesus into your life as your lord and savior. Receive his forgiveness for your sins. So I invite you to bow your heads and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity. “Jesus, I believe in You, and I receive You.”

John MacArthur’s required additions to the gospel presentation for salvation

* Repentance
* Know who the family of God is
* A sense of eternal judgment
* A discussion on hell
* Self-denial
* Laying down the law of God against which the sinner is broken
* A sense of guilt in the person
* Sense of condemnation in the person
* A fear of eternal torment in the person
* An understanding of God’s wrath
* The sinner should be crushed under the weight of his violation of the law of God

One might be guilty of laying it on a little light, the other just might be guilty of turning the already narrow road into a tiny beaten path. Let the crusades continue.

Look, I am fine if you have legitimate beef with Rick Warren’s programs. I am fine if you express realistic frustration over realistic issues with Purpose Driven. The problem is, half of the stuff on the internet from the ODMs is poorly supported, or over exaggerated. There is very little that actually has strong content against Warren. Here is part 5 of a series called “Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven“, as if it were one or the other. The title immediately told me where this author, Berit Kjos, was going. Here is just on example of the logic that these guys are using.

“Begin by assessing your gifts and abilities. Take a long, honest look at what you are good at and what you’re not good at. Ask other people. Paul advised, ‘Try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities.’ [Romans 12:3b, The Message] Make a list. Ask other people for their candid opinion…. Spiritual gifts and natural abilities are always confirmed by others.” [4, page 250]

They are? What if your spiritual gift has nothing to do with your natural talents or personal preferences? What if God gave you gifts that would show His exceeding greatness, not yours? In stark contrast to Pastor Warren’s view of spiritual gifts, the apostle Paul said,
[I Cor 2:1-5]
Did you hear that? God uses weak but faithful believers who will demonstrate His power, not their own talents. In fact, our own talents are often the opposite of our spiritual gifts. History shows us how some of God’s most powerful messengers served in total weakness, all the more demonstrating the amazing power of the Holy Spirit. Now as then, many of His servants come to Him as quiet, shy introverts who would fear speaking their name in a group and would shudder at the improbable thought of ever speaking in front of a group.

Wait, where did Warren say that your gifts are given to demonstrate your own ability and power? Where did Warren say that all abilities need to show how great you are? Oh wait, he didn’t. Nor did he say that your spiritual gifts and natural abilities have anything to do with each other, besides that fact that they are both confirmed in community. I am amazed how many times the ODMs will do this! Rick Warren says X, but they go on attacking Y — when he never even said Y! I am not up to speed in all of my logic rhetoric, but this sounds like a straw man argument. Kojos is attacking a premise that Rick Warren never stated.

He goes on to misrepresent Saddleback’s SHAPE assessment (which I actually think it is on the few useful tools in the PD program to help people discover how God has made them). Kojos again writes about Warren blurring the lines between natural abilities and spiritual gifts. He connects the A in Shape (discovering your “abilities”) with the S (discovering your “spiritual gifts”). The fact that Warren puts them in two separate categories says a lot. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they are different, but Kojos insists that natural abilities and spiritual gifts are synonymous in Warren’s mind. Here is one example from his article.

“Just start serving, experimenting with different ministries and then you’ll discover your gifts,” said Pastor Warren in The Purpose-Driven Life. “…I urge you never to stop experimenting…. I know a woman in her nineties who runs and wins 10K races and didn’t discover that she enjoyed running until she was seventy-eight!” [4, page 251]

So she discovered that she enjoys running races. But what does a new hobby or physical exercise have to do with discovering spiritual gifts? Pastor Warren’s next statement doesn’t help answer that question:

So, I looked up that excerpt in PD Life. The first part of the quote was in the first paragraph on page 251, the last two were in another. Plus, he failed to quote this line right before the story of the seventy-eight year old biker

I have met many people who have discovered hidden talents in their seventies and eighties. [emphasis mine]

Again, Kjos twists the quote to seem like Warren is saying that biking is spome type of spitritual gift. Warren makes it clear when he is talking about spiritual gifts, and when he is talking about natural abilities. And Warren’s whole premise for people finding their abilities is so they can use them for the glory of God. It’s ironic that so many ODMs accuse Warren of only using sections of verses to fit his agenda.

Again, I am not a Rick Warren apologist. But, if you are going to attack someone on an international scale in the name of God, please do so with some degree of legitimacy. I am tired of people using isegesis when “discerning” other people’s ministry. They come with a preconceived premise, and then extract anything they possibly can to support their claims.

**UPDATE**

Kjos is not a dude.

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.

That’s it folks! Look no further for the reason why we all in decline. According to this slice post, from this ABC news story, the problem is hygiene! Now why didn’t I think of that?! All these kids coming into our churches, wearing the latest fashions of tattered jeans and bed head - they just need a good shower! Maybe if we had Colgate come and do a 45 minute presentation in all of our churches, we would be rid of the slobbery. Better yet, we can have the ushers hand out disposable toothbrushes at the door. And maybe we can get people back into those polyester three-piece suits again! Remember… the Lord looks at the hygiene, the clothing style and how well you are able to color coordinate your clothing.

**this post contains many facetious statements. While I do believe that our society is becoming more brash, rude and crude, I have no clue how that corresponds to hygiene, clothing choice and how those two affect the current state of the church.

Does anyone find all of the new and urgent postings about Rick Warren and his recent chat with a few ODMs humorous? It seems like they are scrambling to put a nice back-spin on the story, keep their audience clear of possible confusion. I mean, we wouldn’t want people to look at Warren with a fair and balanced view, now would we.

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5135
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5134
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5133
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5130
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5128
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5127
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5125
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5124
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5121
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5114
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5113
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5107

And that’s just the front page of one ODM site.