Posted on 04/02/2007 8:52:50 AM PDT by Terriergal
...is an abomination of desolation?...
No. You didn’t say that. I said that.
It is also, as you say, a compromise.
I can argue both sides.
If hosting a secular conference in our town meant even a 10% reduction in teen pregnancies; drug abuse; cops on the take; . . .
then I think, at some point, the church has an obligation to DO WHAT IT HONORABLY CAN to help reduce such things. That COULD involve cooperating with all manner of honorable organizations seeking reductions in such.
Parochial holier than thou stuff is usually not very redemptive regardless of how “justified.”
There is a time and place and issues fitting for avoiding wasting time “with the world.” But self-righteous, haughty, parochial sanctimony looking down our long noses at the heathen does not strike me as Christlike and I have a hard time imagining Him do such a thing at all.
You said — “To lend them to the world for the purpose of promoting a secular political agenda is to abuse the purpose for which those “four walls” were dedicated.
If the summit were held in some multipurpose room or amphitheater, then that would be different. But to allow an unrepentant partial birth abortion proponent to speak to a crowd within those “four walls” is, IMO, a violation of any promise to God to use those four walls for the purpose for which they were sanctified.”
When I’m in Dallas and I get a chance, I go to First Baptist of Dallas. The First Baptist of Dallas church just finished a big building project. It’s called The Criswell Center — http://criswellcenter.com/
The First Baptist of Dallas web site is — http://www.firstdallas.org/ — The church takes up several square blocks of downtown Dallas — http://firstdallas.org/About/CampusMap.html
They have facilities for themselves in the Criswell Center, plus it will double as a facility (or facilities) for the local community in downtown Dallas. So, it will be rented out, and then also used for church functions, too. So, it’s double-purpose.
That kind of interaction with church functions and with the community functions is okay. I don’t think they will mix church and community functions together, unless it’s a “church outreach function” to the commuity (which they do a lot, too).
So, in one sense, those four walls have been dedicated to God and the preaching of the Gospel and the Word of God. At the same time, it’s used by the community. I’m sure they would not accept *all* sorts of community functions (and I don’t have to go into that, I’m sure...). But, still it’s partly for secular functions. I think that’s okay.
But, when the pastor lends his presence in a secular function, he has to be careful what he’s lending his presence for. And then, when he “hosts” a function — he has to be *extremely* careful. It’s too easy for his “purpose” (get it?) to get confused. He’s a preacher of the Gospel, primarily, and not a social service organization.
But, there’s much more going on here with Rick Warren than simply this. “Emergent Church” issues are the greatest problem, I think — in dealing with the post-modern culture (as I’ve pointed out elsewhere). The “Emerging Church” is slightly different than the “Emergent Church” (i.e., Brian McLaren), but both are a big problem.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sigh.
You said — I think the funniest anti-RW post by one of these “believers” was a quote from a review of one of his books. The chief complaint was that Warren strayed from the KJV Bible and used other translations. It amounted to “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!”
I don’t think that would be a chief complaint. There are others. You can read up on them from several sites that deal in issues of where various preachers and churches stray from the Gospel and/or the Bible. So, these are not isolated viewpoints.
However, that being said — the complaint is not so much that he strayed from the KJV of the Bible. If that’s what you got out of that (or from the general idea of the complaint) then you came away from it wrong.
The real complaint here was that there was “version-shopping” going on — to the point where one would grab a version that would help “make the point” of what the book was saying — instead of consistently using a particular version.
Pretty much all pastors that I’ve heard will preach primarily from one particular version (whichever one they think is good and useful) and then they will stick with it. When they vary from it will be when they are trying to either correct for some minor misunderstanding from that version or perhaps get some clarification that isn’t as apparent in that version. And then, when doing that — they will use another version for that purpose. And many times, in doing that particular thing, they will also resort to the original languages to help make the point.
On the other hand, in Rick Warren’s book (according to the complaint as I understand it), he will use absolutely *anything* if it serves his purpose for “his points” that he is making, regardless of the true understanding of the particular verse being used.
So, in the manner that you would say that someone is “doctor-shopping” (when they’re trying to accomplish something that some doctors won’t do) — he is “version-shopping” to accomplish something that a consistent use of one version won’t do.
That’s my understanding of it. And with that being the case (and apparently no one is denying the use of all the different versions) — then — that show that one is not treating the Word of God with the utmost respect. It would appear that the “word of Warren” comes first, and then “find the right version” to back up the “word of Warren”.
Regards,
Star Traveler
That’s my understanding of it. And with that being the case (and apparently no one is denying the use of all the different versions) — then — that show that one is not treating the Word of God with the utmost respect. It would appear that the “word of Warren” comes first, and then “find the right version” to back up the “word of Warren”.
= = =
I think that’s a parochial attitude that’s essentially hogwash. Every pastor I’ve ever had would use the version which expressed his own best sense of the particular verse he was speaking about. I don’t see Warren doing anything different than that.
Of course, by definition, when Warren breathes, it’s wrong.
But, there’s much more going on here with Rick Warren than simply this. “Emergent Church” issues are the greatest problem, I think — in dealing with the post-modern culture (as I’ve pointed out elsewhere). The “Emerging Church” is slightly different than the “Emergent Church” (i.e., Brian McLaren), but both are a big problem.
Our "denomination" has specifically disassociated itself from the "emergent church" movement and recently Chuck Smith ordered all books by Warren removed from the Calvary Chapel bookstores because of Warren's involvment in these movements. Indeed, Chuck Smith even disassociated himself from his own Son's church for his involvment in this movement. I think it is fairly clear that there is something sinister afoot in that movement. I haven't studied it, but I do trust Chuck Smith's judgment on this one.
You said — “As I understand it, the conference was NOT held in the sanctuary and no secular folks were in his pulpit.”
As I was pointing out, the Criswell Center for First Baptist of Dallas, has a dual-purpose function. It’s a community gathering place, where others can rent it and have functions — functions really not having anything to do with the church or the Gospel or the Word of God. That’s something that they will do.
But, when a church hosts a function or a pastor participates in some function — then one has to get mighty careful at that point.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I’m still thinking a secular conference hosted
by a church begs the Gospel message at all costs.
My opinion. Time short.
What Satan means for evil, God means for good.
but by turning his church over to abortionists and representatives of terrorist governments and whoever else he thought should attend this forum, he did nothing more than to taint the sanctuary with the stain of secularism.
= = =
I have no evidence that RW “turned over” any part of his congregation’s facility to anyone else. Do you?
Or is this more of ‘gather all the rocks in the neighborhood and throw them at RW’ stuff?
You said — “Of course, by definition, when Warren breathes, it’s wrong.”
You’re going beyond what I said... when you say that...
There are real problems with Rick Warren, and I think it centers, more “logically” on the “Emergent Church” (or maybe just “Emerging Church”) issues. That’s where I would focus...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Not sure I get your drift.
I certainly agree that God can use all things for His purposes.
What Satan intends for “secular” purposes,
God can redeem for “eternal” purposes.
Read the story of Joseph being sold by his
brothers.
Christians should share the Gospel whenever
the opportunity is presented.
A summit would be a GREAT opportunity.
You said — “Our “denomination” has specifically disassociated itself from the “emergent church” movement and recently Chuck Smith ordered all books by Warren removed from the Calvary Chapel bookstores because of Warren’s involvment in these movements. Indeed, Chuck Smith even disassociated himself from his own Son’s church for his involvment in this movement. I think it is fairly clear that there is something sinister afoot in that movement. I haven’t studied it, but I do trust Chuck Smith’s judgment on this one.”
I saw a notice (just saw it today, in fact) that was a warning to all Calvary Chapel churches that if any of them associated themselves with the “Emergent Church” they could *no longer* be named (or called or associated with) a Calvary Chapel church...
That’s a pretty strong statement and an immediate warning to all. This Emergent Church thing is recent upon the scene, in just the last five years, although the seeds of it have been going on longer than that. It’s time for all Christians to familiarize themselves with this and the issues of post-modernism, because this is what is driving these things (in the church at large).
Regards,
Star Traveler
Good.
Thankfully, you are not as shrill and arbitrary as so many are.
I sometimes think the emergent/emerging church stuff is so much jealous carping on the part of folks who idolize tradition over whatever God may be doing with a fresh twist.
But I haven’t really studied about it much.
I actually think he does a fairly decent job in this kind of situation.
No, that's him on the left.
He let an unrepentant partial birth abortion proponent freely speak in his sanctuary and at the same time use that platform as a positive footnote in his campaign to be the president of the United States.
I'd say that qualifies.
Wouldn't you?
"we believe in a thing not because it is modern, or helpful, or leads to desirable ends, but because it is true." --C. S. Lewis
My disclaimer: I think Lewis had a lot of good things to say, but in places his theology and soteriology is ... well, just not right.
Yes, on occasion he says something good. Let’s pray his boldness will increase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.