"warrenism"?? purpose-driven church under attack
wow… where to begin. first of all, I had no idea that there was so much downright hatred toward rick warren and purpose driven. i mean i’m not so naïve to think everybody buys into his methodology (heck, I don’t even buy into every aspect of it), but I really had no idea. i first got a clue when I was referred to the brewing controversy over at bellevue baptist in memphis, and the more i dug, the crazier things seemed to get. and the more links i clicked, the deeper i got lost in the labyrinth (<--75 cent word!!) of websites and blogs. i should have left a trail of breadcrumbs because i almost didn’t find my way back out. (ironically, when just for fun I checked synonyms for “labyrinth” one of the words that came up was… “warren”!) now, let me just say that the whole steve gaines (senior pastor of bellevue) thing seems pretty bizarre, and if what some are saying he did is true, he should resign. however, that isn’t what i wanted to address (in this post, anyway). while at savingbellevue.com (a site put up by a deacon opposed to pastor gaines), i linked up to http://www.stateofthechurch.com/ its not really clear who’s behind this site, but whoever he or they is/are, they are dead-set against what they call the church growth movement, and the two people they believe are the driving force behind it: rick warren and bill hybels. while i was checking that site out, i clicked the following link, and that’s when i decided to get enraged… uh, i mean engaged. not too many things i dislike more than misrepresentations and outright lies. to make sense of the rebuttal I emailed to the website (which appears below), you’ll need to click the above-referenced link and check out the issues they raise, and the very misleading topic titles assigned to said issues. the article they have taken exception to was written for pastors.com by chuck mcalister, senior pastor of church at crossgate center in hot springs, ar. the links on the “transition an established church” page will take you to different sections of the mcalister article. it’s many of those link titles that i have big problems with.as i said, i don’t subscribe to every single strategy that pastor warren or pastor mcalister espouse, but there are better ways to challenge somebody’s methodology than to tell out-and-out lies about it. if Christians cannot dialog without lying and misrepresenting the facts, we have even more serious issues within the body of Christ than i thought. what i will say about the so-called church growth movement is that i believe they have it right so far as the big picture is concerned. they empower and encourage individual Christians to utilize their talents and spiritual gifts to go into their communities and do ministry. its through this strategy that churches like saddleback have grown. the only importance that warren places on the numbers is that every number represents a soul being impacted by the gospel message as its not just preached, but also as its lived out in the lives of believers. this is what i alluded to in my comment on jim whaley’s first quote from the book “organic church.”
well as i’ve looked back at all the links i inserted into the paragraphs above, i seem to have created my own little labyrinth, haven’t i… bring plenty of bread crumbs.
my email to stateofthechurch.com:
dear sir(s):
i read with quite a bit of interest and concern some of your self-titled topics on your "transitioning" page, and i have a few questions/comments.
several of your topics are quite misleading, which becomes quite obvious to any balanced person who happens to click the link and read what's actually there. for example...
- "change church name (remove baptist)": nowhere in the text does it state "remove baptist" from the name of the church. while some churches do indeed decide to remove "baptist" from their name, many do not.
-"let-um go if they don't like it": that is a very misleading statement in light of what one reads after clicking on the link:
so what would you propose to do about church members who choose of their own volition to leave the church? force them to stay? the implication of your wording is to turn those church members out, when in fact what the author is saying is if they choose to leave, GRACIOUSLY allow them to do so. again, very misleading."You must remember that the transition will not please everyone - that would be impossible. Do not abandon your vision to appease a person or even a group of persons who choose to leave. God will send other leaders to take their place. This is the most difficult part of the process for some pastors because we are wired to please people. You must remember that pleasing God is what matters; besides, the church does not belong to you or a disgruntled church member. It belongs to Jesus Christ. We are simply called to do what God says is best for His church."
-"remove baptist name": same as my first point above. nowhere in the text of the article did they specifically say to drop "baptist" from the name. additionally, no matter what they changed the name to, the article is very clear that the church members' support was enlisted for the name change.
-"sermon notes on IMAX": how do you equate a church video projection system with an IMAX theater? you do realize that IMAX is approximately 5 stories high, and wider than the peripheral vision of the audience in order to give a sense of "being there". IMAX doesnt lend itself well to simple projection of song lyrics (with maybe an aesthetically pleasing background). i believe you grossly exaggerated this point, perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of vindictiveness. additionally, i know of many people, particularly the elderly, who have poor eyesight which makes trying to follow along from a hymnal difficult, if not impossible. many of these folks are very appreciative of having the song lyrics projected because the text is large enough for them to see.
-"rewrite old hymns": another misrepresentation of what the author actually wrote. introducing new arrangements of hymns is a far cry from re-writing old hymns. by the way, are you aware that many of our most beloved hymns are merely re-writes (lyrically) of old saloon songs? no one seems to have much of a problem with singing Godly words to the tune of an old drinking song. why do so many people have a problem with singing those same Godly lyrics to a different arrangement of the music??
-"phase out organ and piano, bring in guitar and drums": what the author wrote was "gradually de-emphasize piano and organ..." there is a big difference between phasing out and de-emphasizing. in order to bring other instruments into the mix, of course the instruments that formerly garnered all the musical attention must be de-emphasized. the author never made the case for getting rid of the piano and organ. furthermore, why do you have a problem with guitars and drums? are you not aware that psalm 150 pretty much includes all types of musical instruments to be used to praise God? i'm not even real sure that there was any sort of instrument that would have been comparable to an organ back in Bible times. the organ might very well be the most "unbiblical" of the instruments mentioned in this discussion. you shouldnt equate 18th, 19th and 20th century worship forms with "the only right way" to worship.
-"reshape the core members thoughts": you make this sound like some sort of insidious brain washing. the author is merely stating that many church members have operated under the belief that their spirituality is somehow connected to how busy they are for God. that sounds an awful lot like works-based salvation to me, and i agree that those people need a (literally) healthy dose of re-education. surely you would agree that it isnt healthy for the church or the people that a very few should shoulder all the work. ALL of us should be involved in the ministries of the local church. however, i also know that some folks feel that they have "control" if they can monopolize things, so new members or even long-time members that have never been involved before are shut out because those that have "done it" for so many years dont want anyone else involved. this is neither healthy or biblical.
-"kiss them goodbye and good reddens": i assume you mean good "riddance." it is nonetheless another of your misleading topic titles. the author specifically states that the departure of some church members is a heart-breaking experience. he goes on to state "you love them and you want what is best for them..." how do you get an attitude of "good riddance" from that?
well, that pretty much covers the misrepresentations. however, i was curious about some of the other topics you focused on, and wanted to ask you about those if i may.
why do you have such a problem with reaching the unchurched? is that not the essence of the Great Commision? do you feel threatened by the possibility of new believers joining your church? if so, why?
concerning adopting new by-laws: what problem do you have with adopting by-laws that "comply with the biblical structure for a church"? dont you want your church's structure to model the structure of a new testament church?
concerning a church covenant: your topic states that it is a new covenant. what i get from what the author wrote was that he isnt necessarily espousing replacing an existing church covenant, but rather introducing a covenant where none existed before. however, as with new by-laws, if the church covenant needs re-working in order to help members grow spiritually and personally, why is that a problem?
about dismissing staff that dont go along with changes being made. i dont know you, but i would suspect that you would have no problem dismissing the author if he were a staff person in your own church because you disagree with his vision for ministry within the church. if i'm wrong, please accept my apology. in any event, in order for a church to move in a certain direction, no mater what that direction may be, all staff must be on the same page. how could a pastor, a shepherd, lead a flock toward green pastures if some of the under-shepherds are trying to lead the flock in another direction, or simply trying to make the flock stay put?
not interested in swapping church members... i dont even know what to say to this. i cant even imagine that you would have a problem with this statement. do you mean to tell me that you would condone taking members from other churches in your area? our churches dont need to be "sheep stealing" but rather going out and gathering lost sheep into the fold.
"identify the 'power people' (possible troublemakers)": i respectfully challenge you to show me where the author ever used the term "possible troublemakers." i am tempted to assume that you may be a "power person" in your church, and you feel threatened by change. power people feel threatened by change because change may mean they can no longer control the church. they should feel threatened, and they should not be in control. if i've mis-characterized you, again, accept my apology. in the case of churches where deacons are the power people, the author was dead on target when he said they should be moved to a servant role. the book of
acts makes it perfectly clear that the role of a deacon is to be a servant. period. deacons do not run the church. deacons should not run the church. deacons should be too busy tending to the needs of the church members to have the time or energy to want to run the church.
changing of the church structure: the author plainly stated that the church family readily embraced this. if the church body is in favor, why is there a problem for you? and the new structure has enabled the church members to utilize their spiritual gifts more effectively in
order to carry out the ministries of the church. surely you dont have a problem with that, right?
starting activities for men... i'm speechless that you would have any problem with this at all. what would be your alternative to having God-centered fellowship opportunities for the men of
your church... or the women or the children for that matter?
i hope i havent overwhelmed you with my many questions. i'm just a curious type of person i guess. i'm also passionate about the work of the church in my community, and the world. our churches and our church people need to be equipped to carry out the great commission. there are well over a billion people in our world that have yet to hear the gospel, and any church that can make changes necessary to more efficiently carry out the great commission is a church that God is well pleased with.
thank you for your time.
in His service,
dean m. cirelli
posted by dean at 5:37 AM
9 Comments:
WOW! Way to go, Dean!
wow, looking at the links on your page, escpecially the anit church movmment website. two things came to my mind. first their assertion about how the church is moving from a new testment church to a contmpary church. there was no biblical bases to say that a new testment church could not be a contmmpeary church. all there complants were about the building and the look. about there traditions and there ways. the new testement church did not have crosses and hymnals and buissnes meetings. it was organic. second was there witch hunt mentality. let us know mentality on there web site. to me that is hurting not helping the church. the other thing that the web site assumes is that traditional and contempart pd churches are the only "movments" out there. what about the movment of the mulit-cultrual churhc. that puposely becomes divers to mete the needs of the body of christ as a whole. they get rid of hym books. these churches even mess race inleadership and worship styles. would they have a problum with that. or have a problum of churches that try to meet a certan type of lost.
Dean - I had the same outrage after reading one paragraph of the complaints and stupidity going on at Bellevue. It's one of those things that make me want to scream. I went crosseyed after seeing more of the same junk. There are so many church people and churches in the same situation (of course on a smaller scale, but it's the same spirit underneath), it's a wonder the body of Christ is as effective as it is!
(I must preface this by saying this isn't talking about going through the proper authoritative channels to have immorality, unsound doctrine, or illegal practices dealt with.)
This is what I call a Jezebel spirit. This is not referring to women wearing make-up and jewelry, but it's referring to a spirit that rises its ugly head when the prophet of God challenges her ways. As Jezebel rose up threatened Elijah's life after proving her method (worship of baal) wrong; the Jezebel spirit (an attitude of the flesh, not necessarily a demonic possesion) rises up in the church when you try to bring people out of the methodology they've become emotionally attached to. People influenced by this attitude will speak out a death sentence over the leadership of their pastor (called by God, not hired by man) and assert their own "authority" to have him taken out. Pastors, deacons, leaders, and the membership must all be made aware of the danger of the Jezebel spirit and be conscious of it being an influence in their own lives so that the Word of God can flow freely into the lives of the hurting (whew that was a huge sentence). I'm not saying members are demon posessed (sometimes we wonder), I'm saying that people from the pulpit to the pew are able to succomb to the dangerous lies of the devil and be distracted from the purpose of the church.
I may do a post on my blog later on about the Jezebel spirit... There are so many things about the Jezebel of the Bible that parallel to these very things we see happen in churches everywhere.
From the looks of it, both the Bellevue debacle and the "movement" (if you wish to dignify it with that term) against Church Growth are surrounded by bumbling buffoons.
I'm glad that you dug into this and blogged it, because I would have merely laughed at such pseudo-intellectual, equine laxations before retreating back toward the rational.
If you will indulge me just a moment, I would like to clarify several remarks you made regarding Bellevue Baptist. I share these in an attempt to try and stem the tide of misinformation regarding our dear church.
With regard to "Warrenism" at Bellevue, I'm afraid you have been misinformed. Where that started is a mystery. You could not attend a single service and come away with that conclusion. Bellevue is the same pastor led, deacon served, committee run church that it has been for the 20+ years I have attended.
Next, the website you referenced was not created by a deacon opposed to Dr. Gaines. It was created by a former choir member who has apparently taken up an offense of a previous staff minister.
Sadly, there is a great deal of incorrect information on the page. It has also promoted the difficulties at Bellevue into the public sector where it had no place. This was and is an internal issue that should have remained as such. As a result, anyone with an opinion may comment on our situation with only a morsel of information and draw conclusions that are anything but close to the truth.
True to form, the adversary has wreaked havoc and delights in Christians battling each other and not on his evil intents.
Please pray for us here and other churches going through similar difficulties. There is an all out attack on the church and it is coming from within.
Also, please pray for our dear Pastor Gaines and his family. He has been accused of such heinous things that are heartbreaking at the very least. Despite what you may read from various "blogs", he has responded with character and dignity that could only come from the grace of the Lord.
If my life were put under such scrutiny, my best 10 minutes could not hold up to it. I do not know if any of the accusers could disagree with that in their own lives.
Thank you for your time.
to "one more mary"...
since this post was several months old i had to go back and re-read it. now that i have, my first instincts have turned out to be true: you have somehow managed to completely misunderstand what i wrote. my only references to what was going on (at that time) at bellevue, were that when reading up on the controversies going on there, i came across the anti-church-growth site, and more directly, IF the accusations against steve gaines were true, he should resign. NEVER did i say that bellevue had gone purpose-driven. you are correct in that i may have only "morsels" of truth about the situation, but the ONLY conclusion i have drawn is that IF the pastor is guilty of the things described in the saving bellevue website, he should resign (if so led by the Holy Spirit after some intense self-examination). that would go for ANY pastor at ANY church IF they were guilty of the things described... i said IF because i know there is no way i have all the information. by the way, i did happen to listen to some of the audio of the special-called meeting where pastor gaines addressed some of the accusations, and i can't agree with you that he responded with character and dignity in EVERY respect, although knowing my own character faults, i probably would have been prone to sarcasm, too, under the circumstances.
finally, i would like to refer you to what i posted 2 days after this one. that should settle any misconceptions you may have about my position. its entitled "about bellevue" and can be found in the october archives in the right-hand column of the blog page. thanks for stopping by, and i have and will continue to, pray for bellevue.
It would appear that we both have not understood each other. You stated that:
"You have somehow managed to completely misunderstand what i wrote."
LOL, likewise. I apologize if I did indeed misunderstand you.
"NEVER did i say that bellevue had gone purpose-driven."
The title of your post "Warrenism"??pupose-driven church under attack" and then the reference to Bellevue threw me.
"you are correct in that i may have only "morsels" of truth about the situation."
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was speaking collectively.
"I did happen to listen to some of the audio of the special-called meeting where pastor gaines addressed some of the accusations, and i can't agree with you that he responded with character and dignity in EVERY respect..."
I was there for that meeting, in person. You might agree that listening to something over the air (and reading something on the web) could possibly be misinterpreted or confusing. Case in point, my interpretation of your comments and vice versa.
I had no intent to be critical, I just wanted to clear up some bad info that was out there.
I will, indeed, check out your other posting. I will read it with an open heart and mind and do my very best not to misunderstand or "read between the lines."
Thank you for your prayers for Bellevue. I am deeply concerned for those who have chosen to propogate all of this and am fearful that Ps. 109 will come to pass.
Very sincerely,
One more Mary
Dean,
Having tried to clarify my remarks (and hopefully successfully!) The Lord has brought to mind something I had committed not to do.
Prior to my comments regarding your post, I had committed not to post on any blog regarding our church situation. And yet I did. Taking out my frustrations on someone totally unrelated to what is going on here.
And so, I owe you an apology. My "beef" is with those here who have introduced our difficulties to the general public..and not with you.
My first venture into the "blogosphere" has proven to create more problems than it solved.
So please forgive me for my attitude and any thing I might have said to offend you.
Convicted,
One more Mary
for "one more mary":
often i've found that when i set out to write about something, i usually end up there by way of some other topic. my main purpose in writing this particular article about what has become known as "warrenism" was to point out a multitude of mischaracterizations and outright lies at a website called stateofthechurch.com. i got to that website from a link at savingbellevue.com. probably i should have left any references to bellevue out of the "warrenism" post, but up until i was directed to savingbellevue, i didnt even know trouble was brewing at bellevue, and in my shock and dismay, i felt led to say something about it, just in passing.
quite frankly, i was rather suprised to get any comments on the posting this many months after writing it. anyway, i do hope that if this exchange has left a bad taste in your mouth concerning the "blogosphere", that you will accept my apologies, because it really is a fascinating community, and i'd hate to know i caused anyone to have a bad experience with it. we love to get comments and feedback, and most of us are pretty civil :-)
this post, and the one entitled "about bellevue" are the only ones i've written that mention the controversies. i hope you might take the time to not only read my other posts, but also check out some of the other blogs i link to. we write about all sorts of things, and have quite a divergence of opinions and views... it keeps things interesting!
i do continue to pray for your church. i really did admire and respect pastor rogers, and as a result, i have great admiration and respect for bellevue. God will ultimately be glorified in all of this.
Post a Comment
<< Home