Rick Warren represents us?

[GreenMunchkin]

Thanks!

Not acceptable in anyway. However, I would say it was less serious and damaging. Emotional affairs lead to physical affairs in the majority of circumstances I'd assume. For him to have ended the affair before it turned physical and confessed to it is, I think, something we should appreciate.

Am not ready to say that he did that. The way the entire thing played out was reprehensible, with the entire ministry lying about it all and keeping it a secret until it suddenly became public and they had to send out the press release. That it went further than emotional *is* rumour, and it's not something I'll believe until it's confirmed, but nor am I ready to congratulate him on being honest, as I don't think he was.

I really think this is a gender issue as much as anything else. Have seen several men claim that simplysex would somehow make it less serious. Women, meanwhile, tend to feel the opposite.

Sex is a powerful act on a spiritual and emotional level and not just a physical one. It is the act that unites two people as one and Paul talks about how a believer can't unite himself a prostitute. To unite yourself with someone outside the bonds of your marriage must be very damaging. There are also physical dangers to sexual affairs that aren't present in emotional affair: illegitimate children and STDs for example.

I agree, sex is hugely hugely spiritual. It creates spiritual ties with people, apart from anything else. But to unite doesn't solely refer to sex.

A man won't leave his wife over a quick roll in the hay. He will leave her because he fell in love with someone else. Emotional affairs are far more damaging, long term. Sex can be stopped, repented of, forgiven, moved past. Knowing your person loved someone else... not so easy to get past.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Probably the gay one..

You were right, it was Bishop Gene Robinson that GM was referring to. But he is Episcopalian (ECUSA) rather than Anglican. They're closely related of course, but they're different organizations.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

My take was that the organisation was in no way pagan ("But Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru MP and a member of the Gorsedd of Bards himself, said the group "clearly isn't a pagan organisation".") and just a way to honour people who were contributing to welsh language and culture. If your concern is that it sends the wrong signals to people then that's probably valid (and I'm sure it did). However, it seems safe to say that the ceremony did not represent any pagan beliefs on Rowan William's part.

So as the leader of such a huge denomination, should he not be a little more careful? It's true that pastors and vicars and bishops are under a microscope, and if their behaviour isn't perfect, they're pilloried... but that's a cross they've chosen to bear, right? So even if it was all completely innocent, it still does the faith damage in terms of its reputation, and people's understanding of it.

If you're worried about being misleading and ambiguous you probably won't like him at all. I recall last year there were some quite controversial news stories about him and things he had said. On investigation the quotes were out of context and I didn't have a problem with anything he said but the media had successfully used his words to make it seem like he held some rather off the wall views. He is an incredibly bright guy but unfortunately susceptible to being misrepresented, especially in the press.

The other controversy... that was regarding his saying there was room for Islamic law in the UK? Something along those lines, anyway. Yeah, I have to admit, that whole thing seems to have been blown way out of proportion.

Interesting another controversy was around an email he sent saying he "had real misgivings about the compatibility of Masonry and Christian profession" to fit in with another thing you said.

Good man. Not many would have stood up and said so given the degree of cross over. Very respect-worthy indeed, that.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Having dug around I suspect you're talking about this. I'll leave you to form your own opinions.

Thanks for looking Must admit, though, that has me a little more convinced than before that there's something wrong. The masons claim to be a Christian organisation, too, and they're about as unChristian as it gets. Celtic druidism, regardless of Christian hymns being sung, is deeply pagan in origin.

And, whatever's going on behind the scenes, if it is all above board, that's hugely misleading and, at best, ambiguous.

Hmm, looks to me like a purely Welsh cultural and traditions thing, nothing pagan about it except by historical association. I don't necessarily think it was wrong of Williams to participate in this... unless of course there's pagan stuff going on behind the scenes that doesn't come out in the article.

 

[Fantine]

Warren has had both McCain and Obama speak at his church.

If a religious leader hosts a political show such as this, it is important that he treat both candidates fairly and impartially. He shouldn't have an agenda--his agenda should be to allow both candidates to speak out on issues important to Christians as truthfully and openly as possible.

That's a pretty tall order for a host, and many religious leaders wouldn't qualify. Many religious leaders wouldn't be acceptable to both candidates, either. No candidate in his right mind is going to walk into a lynching.

I thought Warren did a good job, and I know several Catholics who have been greatly helped from reading "Purpose Driven Life."

He has also started a Christian 12 step group based on the Beatitudes called "Celebrate Recovery." This group is quite active in my community and has helped a lot of people as well.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmm, looks to me like a purely Welsh cultural and traditions thing, nothing pagan about it except by historical association. I don't necessarily think it was wrong of Williams to participate in this... unless of course there's pagan stuff going on behind the scenes that doesn't come out in the article.

Am really wary of seeing bad where there isn't any. Know what I mean? It's so lovely looking for the good, and ignoring the bad (or possible bad...) But when it's to do with Christianity, it's such a fine line. We're warned to be aware of false teachers (not saying Williams is one for even a second, but in general, I mean) and we know how insidious and sneaky the devil is, so we almost *have* to look for the bad. I don't know. I think, either way, it was a silly thing to do. But we all do silly things, all the time.

 

[Markus6]

You were right, it was Bishop Gene Robinson that GM was referring to. But he is Episcopalian (ECUSA) rather than Anglican. They're closely related of course, but they're different organizations.

The Episcopal church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. We are the same organisation.

So as the leader of such a huge denomination, should he not be a little more careful? It's true that pastors and vicars and bishops are under a microscope, and if their behaviour isn't perfect, they're pilloried... but that's a cross they've chosen to bear, right? So even if it was all completely innocent, it still does the faith damage in terms of its reputation, and people's understanding of it.

To be honest I'd mostly lean towards saying no, he shouldn't have to be more careful on these issues at least. Partly because I think he has been clear about all these things and the arguments were coming from people who were only picking bits of information and not looking at the whole thing. If people are going to just pick and choose what information to look at then they're going to be able to find bad in anything. I realise there are many issues we should be careful about I just don't think this is one of them. Also I don't think the reputation of the faith was damaged, all the criticism seemed to be coming from Christians.

The other controversy... that was regarding his saying there was room for Islamic law in the UK? Something along those lines, anyway. Yeah, I have to admit, that whole thing seems to have been blown way out of proportion.

That was one. The other was an article that ran with the title "Archbishop says nativity a legend" some time around Christmas. It turned out it was talking about a radio show with Rowan Williams talking about the modern Christmas card idea of the nativity and comparing it with the story from the bible. Where he used the word legend was in relation to there being 3 wisemen, one of them being black, and giving their names. He said the bible only says they came from the East and doesn't say how many there were, just that there were 3 gifts. The title and the article totally failed to say that, however.

Good man. Not many would have stood up and said so given the degree of cross over. Very respect-worthy indeed, that.

To clarify it was a private email not intended for the public and he acted pretty quickly to try to appease the controversy. It certainly wasn't a bold stand up statement.

 

[Zecryphon]

Hullo again! Tis good to see ya

Ok, have recently been hearing an awful lot of negativity about him. What's afoot? Has he started deviating from Biblical teachings?

I think it'd be best if you heard it for yourself. So I'm going to give you some links that will take you to a podcast that often reviews the sermons of Osteen and other pastors. The podcast is called Issues, Etc. It's a Lutheran podcast but don't let that frighten you off. The major problem with Joel Osteen is, he's not his dad, who I understand was a Biblical pastor. Osteen is an inspirational speaker and he says as much when he's interviewed. He just wants to make people feel good. He never preaches on the cross, sin or repentance because those are, in his own words, "downers". I can't say he's strayed from Biblical teaching, because he never engaged in Biblical teaching to begin with.

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_01_11_05.htm (In hour 3 is Joel Osteen on Joy.)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_02_06_06.htm (In hour 2 they review his sermon on Improving Your Self Image)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_04_20_05.htm (Hours 2 & 3 focus on Joel Osteen's then new book Your Best Life Now)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_05_01_05.htm (This whole podcast seems to be devoted to a review and discussion of Joel's book, Your Best Life Now)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_05_18_04.htm (Hour 3 focuses on the teachings of Joel Osteen)

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/osteen/king.htm (This is a link to the now infamous Joel Osteen CNN interview with Larry King)

 

[GreenMunchkin]

To be honest I'd mostly lean towards saying no, he shouldn't have to be more careful on these issues at least. Partly because I think he has been clear about all these things and the arguments were coming from people who were only picking bits of information and not looking at the whole thing. If people are going to just pick and choose what information to look at then they're going to be able to find bad in anything. I realise there are many issues we should be careful about I just don't think this is one of them. Also I don't think the reputation of the faith was damaged, all the criticism seemed to be coming from Christians.

Makes sense, though. Atheists aren't gonna mind either way. Only Christians stand to be affected by it, so only we would have a vested interest.

But I think it sends out hugely mixed messages. It's ok to be involved in pagan ritualism and to be a Christian. Assuming there was nothing pagany about it, it's still dreadfully easy to misconstrue.

That was one. The other was an article that ran with the title "Archbishop says nativity a legend" some time around Christmas. It turned out it was talking about a radio show with Rowan Williams talking about the modern Christmas card idea of the nativity and comparing it with the story from the bible. Where he used the word legend was in relation to there being 3 wisemen, one of them being black, and giving their names. He said the bible only says they came from the East and doesn't say how many there were, just that there were 3 gifts. The title and the article totally failed to say that, however.

Ha! Pfft, the UK's not a fan of Christianity. Wouldn't be surprised about people in the media having knives out for him. Hadn't heard that one, though... was it widespread?

To clarify it was a private email not intended for the public and he acted pretty quickly to try to appease the controversy. It certainly wasn't a bold stand up statement.

Phail

I think it'd be best if you heard it for yourself. So I'm going to give you some links that will take you to a podcast that often reviews the sermons of Osteen and other pastors. The podcast is called Issues, Etc. It's a Lutheran podcast but don't let that frighten you off. The major problem with Joel Osteen is, he's not his dad, who I understand was a Biblical pastor. Osteen is an inspirational speaker and he says as much when he's interviewed. He just wants to make people feel good. He never preaches on the cross, sin or repentance because those are, in his own words, "downers". I can't say he's strayed from Biblical teaching, because he never engaged in Biblical teaching to begin with.

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_01_11_05.htm (In hour 3 is Joel Osteen on Joy.)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_02_06_06.htm (In hour 2 they review his sermon on Improving Your Self Image)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_04_20_05.htm (Hours 2 & 3 focus on Joel Osteen's then new book Your Best Life Now)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_05_01_05.htm (This whole podcast seems to be devoted to a review and discussion of Joel's book, Your Best Life Now)

http://www.kfuoam.org/Issues_ETC/ie_05_18_04.htm (Hour 3 focuses on the teachings of Joel Osteen)

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/osteen/king.htm (This is a link to the now infamous Joel Osteen CNN interview with Larry King)

Ah... so he's going the way of Warren, too. Yeah, when it's all about what the Lord can give us and do for us, it's gone wrong.

He actually didn't start off that way, though. When he started his church and it was tiny, he was Biblical through and through. Tis a pity. But God can bring him back

 

[Nadiine]

Ah... so he's going the way of Warren, too. Yeah, when it's all about what the Lord can give us and do for us, it's gone wrong.

He actually didn't start off that way, though. When he started his church and it was tiny, he was Biblical through and through. Tis a pity. But God can bring him back

I think you bring up a key point - they often aren't like this when they're small.... but when they grow, this keeps happening that they go "generic" to please the masses (even when it was the truth that was growing them in the beginning).

What happens to them when they get bigger? Does money corrupt them or what?
Very few stand firm in the gospel after successful growth into mega church.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I think you bring up a key point - they often aren't like this when they're small.... but when they grow, this keeps happening that they go "generic" to please the masses (even when it was the truth that was growing them in the beginning).

What happens to them when they get bigger? Does money corrupt them or what?
Very few stand firm in the gospel after successful growth into mega church.

D00d, have totally been thinking about this recently! It's a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. I suppose churches become "seeker friendly" to draw in the crowds, and to assure they grow, and that cafeteria Christianity is a compromise - once someone has taken that first step away from Biblical mandate and teachings, it's a slippery slope.

We're greedy, aren't we. By nature, I mean. We want our ids satisfied this instant, and most megachurches focus on our being showered in material and physical blessings. They probably become megachurches for that precise reason. There's no confrontation of sin - nothing to offend anyone. So more and more people go, which persuades the pastors that they must be doing something right, and on it goes.

But, I really do think pastors come under a huge amount of spiritual attack, and heresy being introduced gradually and insidiously is such a deceptive way of doing it. Am just thinking aloud, really. It certainly seems like an expedient way of leading thousands astray in one easy go, and satan is getting desperate now, so expedience is probably necessary.

 

[Nadiine]

D00d, have totally been thinking about this recently! It's a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. I suppose churches become "seeker friendly" to draw in the crowds, and to assure they grow, and that cafeteria Christianity is a compromise - once someone has taken that first step away from Biblical mandate and teachings, it's a slippery slope.

We're greedy, aren't we. By nature, I mean. We want our ids satisfied this instant, and most megachurches focus on our being showered in material and physical blessings. They probably become megachurches for that precise reason. There's no confrontation of sin - nothing to offend anyone. So more and more people go, which persuades the pastors that they must be doing something right, and on it goes.

But, I really do think pastors come under a huge amount of spiritual attack, and heresy being introduced gradually and insidiously is such a deceptive way of doing it. Am just thinking aloud, really. It certainly seems like an expedient way of leading thousands astray in one easy go, and satan is getting desperate now, so expedience is probably necessary.

Yep good points.

I always keep one thing in mind thru all this, that people go to hear a teacher/Pastor becuz that is what they want to hear.
People go to generic teachers becuz they don't WANT to be fed solid sound doctrine.
I think people don't want to be confronted with the hard facts & truth of scripture, so they go to eat all the desserts & feel good instead.

Each of us has a responsibility to look for our spiritual food.

One other thing I think of (aloud lol) is that maybe we aren't praying for our leaders like we should be. They need our prayers.

 

[Zecryphon]

Nadiine, I think what happens is when they water down the gospel to attract more people, they misinterpret the inevitable church growth as a blessing from God. They mistake a church full of people with itching ears for the power of the gospel saving people. Not only do they think they are being blessed with church growth by God, they think that more people are being saved and a lot of these preachers think it's because of what they're doing. They forget salvation is wholly God's work from beginning to end. They become delusional and irrational and a lot of them never realize it. Money, success and "decisions" a disciple does not make.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, I think what happens is when they water down the gospel to attract more people, they misinterpret the inevitable church growth as a blessing from God. They mistake a church full of people with itching ears for the power of the gospel saving people. Not only do they think they are being blessed with church growth by God, they think that more people are being saved and a lot of these preachers think it's because of what they're doing. They forget salvation is wholly God's work from beginning to end. They become delusional and irrational and a lot of them never realize it. Money, success and "decisions" a disciple does not make.

Basically, pride might be a source someplace if they are thinking God's blessing them for their great achievements of preaching - 'they' save people by their evangelism...?? Maybe that's when pride mite get a foothold and start working other things into them & that's where the cracks start?
Just surmizing, I can't say that I think pride is the source for all of them at all.

But yes, I do think that people (esp. the leaders) of these mega churches attribute mass growth to God's blessing them.

I personally like and prefer big churches and always attend them - but will leave if the message starts to change and get dilluted.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think you bring up a key point - they often aren't like this when they're small.... but when they grow, this keeps happening that they go "generic" to please the masses (even when it was the truth that was growing them in the beginning).

What happens to them when they get bigger? Does money corrupt them or what?
Very few stand firm in the gospel after successful growth into mega church.

Just thought I'd point out one notable exception: Mars Hill Church* in Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll. Their doctrine remains Reformed and very conservative (too much so for me) even though it has grown into a megachurch (it passed the 5000+ mark a couple years back). And you have to take a class on their doctrine (like a Lutheran or Catholic catechism) before you can join.

I personally like and prefer big churches and always attend them - but will leave if the message starts to change and get dilluted.

That Mars Hill is too conservative for me (especially on the role of women) is the main reason it isn't my church. The other reason is the size. Bigger is better up to a point, but when the pastor can't remember most people's names, and the ushers have to study crowd control, that's too big for me.



(* Not to be confused with Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI, which is completely different.)

 

[Nadiine]

Just thought I'd point out one notable exception: Mars Hill Church in Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll. Their doctrine remains Reformed and very conservative (too much so for me) even though it has grown into a megachurch (it passed the 5000+ mark a couple years back).

That they are too conservative for me (especially on the role of women) is the main reason it isn't my church. The other reason is the size, just too big for my taste.

hello
I'm happy to hear of one that has stayed close to its roots =0)

Our church is growing very large at this point, but they have what they call 'connection point' - it's a system of smaller classes & smaller group meetings for people to connect & fellowship together where a large church can hinder that intimacy.
So they're at least very aware of that.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

hello
I'm happy to hear of one that has stayed close to its roots =0)

Our church is growing very large at this point, but they have what they call 'connection point' - it's a system of smaller classes & smaller group meetings for people to connect & fellowship together where a large church can hinder that intimacy.
So they're at least very aware of that.

Yep, Mars Hills does that too. It seems like you really have to when a church gets that big... but I'm sure some neglect it.

 

[Nadiine]

Yep, Mars Hills does that too. It seems like you really have to when a church gets that big... but I'm sure some neglect it.

LOL yep, we neglect it!!

But we have our friends from other churches plus close Christian family members, plus my husband is recently far too busy to start getting involved deeper at this church right now, so we just sit in the background till real life can bring us to that point.

I'm not an outgoing social person anyways - I tend to be shy IRL and guarded until I do meet people and bring them in my circle so to speak.
But it's very helpful for most people and when we're able to get more involved in this church
=)

 

[Zecryphon]

Basically, pride might be a source someplace if they are thinking God's blessing them for their great achievements of preaching - 'they' save people by their evangelism...??

Absolutely. A lot of people see evangelism as they are doing something to usher in God's kingdom on earth. They are the ones going out and giving out tracts and maybe witnessing to people. They are the ones proclaiming Jesus Christ is Lord, they are the ones, taking others through the law and gospel. So of course it makes sense to them that when someone comes to faith in Christ, it's because of what they've done. Now take someone with that belief and make them a pastor.

I almost walked out of a church service at my former church because the guest pastor who was sharing a testimony about how he went fishing with his dad one weekend and he kept talking about God and how awesome Jesus is and why his dad needed to make the choice for Christ. Near the end, he said that his father did become a Christian and that, and I quote, "I saved my father that weekend."

Maybe that's when pride mite get a foothold and start working other things into them & that's where the cracks start?
Just surmizing, I can't say that I think pride is the source for all of them at all.

But yes, I do think that people (esp. the leaders) of these mega churches attribute mass growth to God's blessing them.

Yep, in today's day and age, church growth equals God's blessing.

I personally like and prefer big churches and always attend them - but will leave if the message starts to change and get dilluted.

So how many times have you walked out of Saddleback and the Crystal Cathedral?

 

[Nadiine]

Yep, in today's day and age, church growth equals God's blessing.



So how many times have you walked out of Saddleback and the Crystal Cathedral?

*slap

I used to live right down the street from the Crystal Cathedral before I got married and even tho I hadn't come back to the Lord at that time & did want want to go to a church becuz I was feeling spiritually lonely, I went to a local Baptist church one Sunday morning instead.

I think I was the youngest person in the entire church that morning lol

(any olde jokes after that opening and you're going to PAY dearly)

Near the end, he said that his father did become a Christian and that, and I quote, "I saved my father that weekend."

yikes. This is exactly why Calvanists believe as they do.
It's all too easy for us to give ourselves the glory for our accomplishments and eloquent words.
We're so prone to pride by nature