This blog is called Dead Theologians because I prefer to read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield and the like rather than 99% of today's wasted ink on paper.
The content on this page is my honest attempt to go over things that pertain to Christianity and its mouthpiece, the church.
I also plan to write about many other topics that relate to my life as a Christian. My goal is to comment throughout the week on one subject while changing subjects every week or so.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
INTERESTING POST
I would like to hear what you think about this post that I came across today.
It made me think about the state of the church today in general.
I think the author of the post is "right on." Pragmatism is running rampant in our churches. Sadly, many pastors have exchanged the truths of the Bible for the "truths" of man concerning how we are to worship. One example that comes to mind is the false prophet, Rick Warren, and his days of purpose which have been heralded as the way to grow your church. Sadly, many ignorant Christians (of all denominations) have blindly followed because the "numbers" seem to evidence Christian growth.
Let's not get out of hand with the "False Prophet" name calling. That I know of, Rick Warren is no Benny Hinn, who is biblically qualified as a false prophet.
From what I of know of Rick and his books, he seems to be a truly born-again follower of the Lord. His methods of reaching the culture that God has called him to reach may not suit all tastes, and neither should they. But to cast such a serious accusation against the man is uncalled for.
Unity in the church does not mean "Uniformity" in the church. Thank God for our differences. We should celebrate them and not wrongfully judge one another by them.
I read JSU's post, and I have to say that if the reason churches are trying to be atractional, so that people actually go to them and not stay home, is driven solely by numbers and money, then yes, it's sinful.
If, however, the reason they're attempting to be atractional, and rise above the 80% of churches who's attendance is plateaued or declining, is to cast more nets to bring more souls into the kingdom, then we should rejoice with them, and the angels, when sinners come to repentance.
Pragmatism, innovation, and vision beat death, declining, and doors closed any day.
By virtue of public teaching/preaching, every Christian biblically has the right to rebuke and reproof, which includes Rick Warren.
Endless reasons specifically for him aren't needed to be reposted here.
Ask yourself this:
Since when is the Gospel supposed to sound good to the unsaved? Why are the unsaved flocking to church with friends and family in the hundreds to like minded churches of Rick Warren?
Anonymous - only ordained elders are Biblically given the resposibility to rebuke and reprove other ordained elders.
I agree with the overall observations of the post, however I would refrain from careless hyperbole. And I would add that many of us who are on the "right" side of sound doctrine are in need of a powerful move of God's Spirit that cleases us from the satified self righteousness we sometimes have over embracing truth.
A false dicotomy. Warren is like so many, he doesn't preach a false gospel in the strict sense, but without the passion and sacrifice that should accompany such a gospel it just blends into a covenient religious experience that although claimed, doesn't seem to alter many lives.
A friend comes into your house and sits down in the living room with you. He smiles and is very pleasant, and you converse for about five minutes. As he reaches for the newspaper he looks over at you and informs you that as he walked up to your home he noticed you master bedroom was engulfed in flames. He looks down smiling and reads the paper.
Would you believe him? No. Why? Because his demeaner indicates that what he has said could not possibly be true.
But if that same friend burst into your home yelling for everyone to get out because there is a large fire in you master bedroom, even though you haven't seen the fire for yourself your friend's demonstrative demeaner convinces you that at least this must be quickly investigated.
So when preachers stand smiling on the stage, upbeat and sharing jokes, when they happen to mention something about God's judgment (if they ever do) no one believes them, because in reality, most don't believe they believe it either.
Welcome to the American church, presenting the gospel as a pragmatic, costless equation, served in an upbeat friendly atmosphere without any hint of urgency, and using the attraction of entertainment and self help principles to draw aisle walkers (future givers) who are easily led in a short and convenient prayer. And then as if pretending to have exclusive access to the Lamb's Book of Life the counselor confidently pronounces them "saved".
The counselor has known the person for five minutes and on the basis of a repeated prayer he assures the person of eternal salvation. A process Eli Whitney would have been jealous of.
You said: "By virtue of public teaching/preaching, every Christian biblically has the right to rebuke and reproof, which includes Rick Warren."
Reproofing and rebuking wasn't dss's intention. She was simply slandering a Man she's probably never met, and couldn't tell you exactly what he believes.
When the bible speaks of reproofing and rebuking, it is to be done in the context of a local assembly where the members know one another and have the intention of building up one another.
Remember when the disciples told Jesus that someone not of their ranks was preaching in His name, and asked if they should stop him. What did Jesus say? If he's not against Me, then leave him alone.
Rick Warren is not against Jesus. With all the truly anti-Christian people out there, do we need to slander covenant members of our own body? This is sinful.
You also said: "Since when is the Gospel supposed to sound good to the unsaved? Why are the unsaved flocking to church with friends and family in the hundreds to like minded churches of Rick Warren?"
This is unbelievable! Someone mad and upset that unsaved people are opting to spend part of the Lord's day in a house of worship! Totally opposite of how the Lord feels about it. Do you think Jesus is as upset about them going to church as you are. NOT. He died for them remember.
Stanfield-
You said: ""Pragmatism, innovation, and vision beat death, declining, and doors closed any day."
Not if a false gospel is preached."
Could you please tell me what about Rick Warren's gospel is false, and what makes him a false prophet? Tell me what prophecies has he made in the name of God that haven't come to pass?
Rick-
I get your point about the urgency factor. Although not every instance in scripture when the gospel is presented is done so with the sense of urgency that you're saying Preachers should have.
Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Paul on Mars Hill. They didn't beg for a response right away. Not every conversation needs to lead to a conversion.
I am not slandering Rick Warren, just calling a spade a spade. I challenge you to google the words “Rick Warren false gospel.” Read some of the countless documented articles (Start with the one found at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/ingrid/gospel-warren.htm.)
See for yourself how he teaches other false religions (Mormons, Catholics, Jews) how to grow their “church” with purpose. (http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/05/rick_warren_wor.html). Here is his Purpose Driven Catholic page http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/40DayCampaigns/PurposeDrivenChurches/Catholics/PDCatholics.htm). That alone should be enough to label him a false prophet. What has light to do with darkness? Hmmm.... well when money is involved?????
Rick Warren teaches: "Learn To Love Yourself!" The Bible teaches: "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal," John 12:25.
Rick Warren teaches: "Be true to yourself" The Bible teaches: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9.
Rick Warren teaches: "God accepts us unconditionally" The Bible teaches: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," John 3:36.
Rick Warren teaches: "Self-esteem still wobbly after all these years?" The Bible teaches: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not....Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:18, 24.
Rick Warren teaches: "God doesn't expect perfection, but he does insist on honesty." The Bible teaches: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," Matthew 5:48.
Rick Warren teaches: "Believe in yourself" The Bible teaches: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16.
Rick Warren teaches: "You can believe what others say about you, or you can believe in yourself as does God." The Bible teaches: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man," John 2:23-25.
I am a full bore, five point Arminian, but this where the free will camp gets in trouble. Becuase we believe Christ died for everyone, an because we beilieve averyong can believe, we assume that if we can just couch the message in a way that seems palatable to people we can remove the sticking points and get them to believe.
That is humanisim and it removes the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The offer is believe on the Lord Jesus, there is no earthly promise.
Some come to Christ and lose their marriage.
Some come to Christ and lose their job. And so it goes. The ONLY promise in the gospel is eternal life through Jesus Christ which of course includes the forgiveness of sins.
I read the article and agree with it completely. This has been bothering me for years as I watched churches become over-bloated self-indulgent messes. I attended Calvary Chapel in 1970 when it was fairly small. (100-200 worshipers)Now it's huge! When I left the southern California church and my commune to move to Athens, Georgia I was blessed to find a Christ-centered home church. We worship in our single minister's Queen Anne style home. I'm appalled by the people who leave their otherwise wonderful churches because there are not enough programs for their children (or enough children),or they only sing those crummy boring old hymns, or don't have a choir (or a big enough one), or the ambiance needs changing, or they've become miffed with someone in the church, etc. etc. ad nauseum. My response is: If you stayed in the church there would be more children. The hymns are wonderful mini-sermons and have such a wealth of worship, belief, praise and are poetry...if one takes the time to sing the verses mindfully, rather than just singing with the mind occupied by the day's worries. Plus the fact that you have a chance to connect with the long line of believers before you. It makes "worship" songs stand out as the self-indulgent things that they are. A choir is not a necessity in the church; neither is incense and robes, beautiful decorations, etc. If you're mad at someone in your church and want to leave, consider this: you will spend eternity with that person, so you might as well learn to get along with them now. Sorry for the long post...got a lot of things on my mind, such as: a need for prayer for all the suffering going on now; the church in England (my heart is breaking); the state of Europe and its waning populations, plus the rise of Islam in these places; Islam itself and its spread over the world; the possible loss of the places that have historic interest to Europeans and their dispersed children; the number of children who are in foster care or up for adoption...some will never have a "home"; the state of indigenous people all over the world (shameful here in the U.S); the need to rid ourselves of bad governing,graft,corruption, pork barrels and lobbyists; the loss of manners, civility, general kindness. the increase in serial killers and mass murderers; the increase in animal cruelty; cock-fighting and dogfighting: drugs; drug lords and cartels; growing drugs; loss of national park forest land due to drug growth there; whole towns hooked on Oxycontin; everywhere where people are pitted one against another,persecuted and hated for their differences(Bosnia, Iraq, India come to mind); the poor state of women in the world...being sold by their parents into slavery or prostitution, denied an education, denied the opportunity to work, cursed and killed for dishonoring the family , thrown out of their homes for being old or widowed, raped (the stupidest reason is for a virgin to be a cure for AIDS) Now I've depressed myself; it's time for prayer that Jesus will be glorified in the midst of all this and that He will bring relief to us. As Mike Myers says, "Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm a bit verklempt." Becky
Example, You said: "Rick Warren teaches: "Believe in yourself" The Bible teaches: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16."
Total misalignment! Rick isn't talking about salvation like the verse you quoted. In Saddleback's own Doctrinal statement off the church website, is says exactly how to be saved. From the site:
-ABOUT SALVATION Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith. Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1-
Please refrain from further slander against one of God's annointed, and our brother in the Lord.
For all the websites you listed, I can list more who embrace Rick as a brother in the faith and support what the Lord's doing at Saddleback.
I looked at some the sites you listed and have to say some of these guys were sort of freaky. The blog authors that is.
Anyhow, have a good one. I know you wait to get back to your "Purpose Driven" book.
DS, I am really grieved how many churches flock to the "numbers" infatuation. It's very sad.
Rick, Where in the Bible does it say that only ordained elders can rebuke other elders? Is this a way of silencing those who call into question the leadership of the church?
Steve, I would hardly call the comments of DS "slander". There is difference in challenging and slander. It is edifying to have other believers question each other because then iron sharpens iron. So by challenging the beliefs and sermons of Rick Warren, others may be sharpened to think.
Rick, I scanned your post for Scripture supporting your previous comment. My question still holds: "Where in the Bible...?" Even in your post you mention how Scripture is clear about your point, but yet you don't list the Scriptures.
I assume you believe only men are to be ordained elders.
I assume you believe that elders oversee the church.
With much Scriptural teaching on those points, where is youy Scriptural authority that gives divine license to a non orgaidned believer, much less a woman, to rebuke or reprove an elder?
That would surely be a departure from OT practices and the practices of the early church. Would it not seem incongruous that that any believer can rebuke his overseer? The body of overseers are called to also collectively oversee themselves.
When an accusation is brought before an elder there must be two witnesses (elders) so a decision can be made by the elder body. The idea that anyone can rebuke an elder is American, not eclesiastical. And that American practice runs rampant through many western churches.
"I believe in the priesthood of the believer and you're no better than me". The pervailing theory of church authority.
What about the "Purpose Driven Catholics?" What about Rick Warren allowing Mormons and Jews to attend his seminars so that they can "have purpose driven churches?" If Mr. Warren really believed the statement on his website concerning salvation (which I need to go back and check out because my first impression was that there was no mention of sin or offending a Holy God), why would he teach these other false religions how to grow??? If he is concerned about the true salvation of souls, he should be warning them of the judgment to come, not promoting their "church growth" programs.
"Please refrain from further slander against one of God's annointed, and our brother in the Lord."
God's annointed... I am not so sure. I wonder how God feels about Mr. Warren's aid to false religions who are an abomination to Him.
I am a little curious here. If your wife does not agree with you theologically, is she allowed to voice her opinion? Would you allow her to use the Scriptures to try and make her case?
Are the women at your church allowed to discuss theology only as long as they agree with the men?
You said: "What about the "Purpose Driven Catholics?" What about Rick Warren allowing Mormons and Jews to attend his seminars so that they can "have purpose driven churches?"
Again, I see your reasoning from a flawed evangelistic mind-set. What better place for Mormons or Catholics to be in than an Evangelical surrounding listening to an Evangelical Pastor talk about the Lord.
Do you think Jesus "allowed" non-believers to hear his sermons? You know He did, and so should we.If Rick let one of these non-believers speak about the tenets of spiritual life, that would be wrong. But to let them attend a purpose driven seminar, come on, no sin in that.
In fact, if we, the church in America, were "allowing" more non-believers to attend our "little church potlucks" we might do better at obeying the scripture about making disciples of all nations!
"why would he teach these other false religions how to grow???"
This is not what he's doing. The purpose driven series isn't about church growth, (although his critics make it that), it's simply about knowing the God who created you and living a life with meaning and purpose. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have to the fullest."
I encourage you to read Saddelbacks's doctrinal statement.
ds - You have changed the discussion, I never said women could not discuss theology or doctrine with the elders at their church. I said REBUKE. So you have changed the wording to misrepresent what I said, including asking about my wife. Everyone can discuss, but where is the Scriptural foundation for an unordained woman rebuking, publicly no less, an ordained elder?
Our generation is the first. You are obviously a student of the Word, I would be attentive to the aspect that I address because you can be of great benefit to the body (even I disagree with some of your theology) if you remain Scriptural in your approach.
"why would he teach these other false religions how to grow???"
"This is not what he's doing. The purpose driven series isn't about church growth, (although his critics make it that), it's simply about knowing the God who created you and living a life with meaning and purpose. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have to the fullest."
Why would a Jew want to attend a seminar that taught a saving relationship with Jesus Christ being portrayed as the only way one can find pupose in their life.? There are "purpose driven" synagogues now.... Are you suggesting these Jewish seminar attendees are taking back to their synagogues the message of Christ? Are the Purpose Driven Catholics (after attending the seminar) repenting of their idolatrous praying to Mary, works salvation, baptismal regeneration, etc. (after attending a Purpose Driven Seminar)... No way. I won't even get started on the Mormons.
It is a marketing strategy, plain and simple. I don't see how you can fail to see that.
"With much Scriptural teaching on those points, where is youy Scriptural authority that gives divine license to a non orgaidned believer, much less a woman, to rebuke or reprove an elder?"
I assumed that this was directed at me for calling Rick Warren (who even as an ordained pastor has no kind of authority over me) a false prophet publicly. I then went on your blog, as you directed in another post, and read some interesting things concerning women on blogs and in the church.
I think my questions (and I should have posted this paragraph along with my questions the first time) stemmed from this paragraph found on your blog:
“But there are a number of blogs that act in the office of elder in their doctrinally corrective nature that are written and overseen by women. Now men and women are equal in Christ as children of the Father, but God has specifically taught us that women and men do not have the same callings in the church. How is it Scriptural that a woman can take doctrinal authority over men in the church? It is not, and it is clear that a woman cannot be an elder in the church therefore she cannot Scripturally correct another man much less an ordained preacher. It is blatantly against Biblical teaching for a woman to act as an elder no matter whether in a church building or in a blog capacity.”
So, if a woman does not agree with a man theologically, she is not allowed to present her argument from Scriptures because this may be viewed as "correcting" him... Hence, the questions.
For the record, a blog can not act in the office of elder. None of us on this blog have authority over any of the others. We are to “obey those who rule over you, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account.” Nobody “rules” over anyone else here on this blog or on any other blog. A blog is not the church.
Do the women at your church vote in congregational meetings?
So far two Men, myself and Rick, have stated that you misrepresent your arguments regularly. Other Men have not seen things the way you see them in previous posts.
I wonder what keeps you interested in debating issues with Men?
I don't want to seem argumentative, and with a women no less, so I won't continue in my dialogue with you about this issue.
Our job as men is to lead, protect, provide, do battle, etc., within the culture and church, and not to debate with our sisters in the Lord.
I would encourage you to not debate with Rick either, as an ordained Pastor.
DSS wasn't challenging Rick Warren, she said he was a 'false prophet' who preached a 'false gospel.' Hard words, and unsubstantiated at that.
She was slandering him, not challenging him.
Rick challenged John McArthur in a recent post on his blog. This is much different. To not agree with others is fine, but to slander an evangelical brother in the Lord is sinful.
By the way, can I have some of the pudding pictured on your blog? ;)
"A blog is not the church." Correct, believers are the church. So by your point a woman could not rebuke an elder in the church building but if she runs across him in the store she can publicly rebuke him because the store is not the church? You present a limited and edifice oriented view of the body of Christ.
"Do the women at your church vote in congregational meetings?" Voting in churches is unscriptural and represents a cultural compromise to the behavior of democracies.
I enjoy discussion/debate, you seem to miss my point again. You are not an ordained elder, you should not publicly rebuke an ordained elder. Discuss, debate, even disagree, but calling Rick Warren a false prophet may or may not be true, but you are Scripturally forbidden to usurp his authority and puiblicly rebuke him.
I may strongly disagree with Ken Silva, but he is within his Scriptural calling and office to do what you should not.
Steve, I love the pudding pic. I just said to myself, "that's the one!"
DS, "Why would a Jew want to attend a seminar that taught a saving relationship with Jesus Christ..." Well said!!! I think it's interesting how your points on these false religions were glossed over.
Rick, I don't suggest pursuing this rebuking/ordained elder viewpoint since you can't provide Scripture. When church leaders are in error, they must be questioned. When they are heretical, they must called out! If my own pastor gets way off for some reason, I will not hesitate to defend Scripture at any cost. When I was young, my very own Sunday School teacher was gradually converting to Mormonism. When I sniffed it out in his lesson, I called him out in the classroom. Scripture has to be FIRST no matter who is leading! Provide Scripture why I shouldn't rebuke ordained people who are in error. Provide Scripture.
Well, since you were saved in 1994 you still might be considered young in the faith. But elders are overseers who are rebuked by other elders. Was your teacher an elder? The correct Scriptural formula is when bringing an accusation before an elder it must be before two witnesses(elders) and the elder against whom the accusation is being made.
Now the body of elders are the overseers and the Scripture commands us to obey them because they watch out for your souls. So if a congregation member converts to a free will perspective is he allowed to rebuke John MacAuthur because he believes he is defending the Scriptures? Of course not, there are Scriptural guidelines for confronting theological perspectives that retain the integrity of the ecclesiastical structue.
And even further, women should never rebuke an elder under any circumstances. Ask the dead theologians listed on this blog what they would think? Imagine Mrs.Edwards rebuking C.H.Spurgeon. Only in the genre of American freedom would we ever consider such a thing.
Next year we will get our wish as Mrs. Clinton is elected into the presidency fair and square. Will you then defend the process a good and Godly? Voting my friend is letting the carnal cesspool rule. God will have none of it, so I urge you not to vote next year but pray, not for America, but for the Americanized church of Jesus Christ.
Sorry - that last part was for free - no charge.
Rebuking an elder, and most certainly calling him a false prophet, is much more serious than writing about them in a antiseptic forum as the internet.
"but you are Scripturally forbidden to usurp his authority and puiblicly rebuke him."
How did I usurp any "authority" that Rick Warren has?
Let me get this straight.
Would you agree with the following statement:
Rick Warren is a false prophet, even though he is ordained. Because I am a woman, it is unbiblical for me to call him a false prophet on a blog in a public forum.
Would you consider me to be violating Scripture by typing the following list?
Incomplete False Prophet List:
Benny Hinn Joel Osteen Joyce Meyer Robert Schuller
Should I have asked my husband (who happens to be ordained) to come and type in the above list for me? If I had, would that have been accepted by you?
Rick, *sigh* I still see no Scripture. Is it that hard to provide me with verses or are you altogether avoiding the subject?
1 Timothy 4:2 "Let no one despise your youth"
Though I may be young in Christ in comparison to you or others, realize that age doesn't equal godliness or biblical knowledge.
Eph 5:6 "Let no one deceive you with empty words..."
2 Thess 2:3 "Let no one deceive you by any means..."
Titus 2:12-15 "teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. SPEAK THESE THINGS, EXHORT, REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. LET NO ONE DESPISE YOU."
1 John 3:7 "Little children, let no one deceive you."
I won't sit back and eat what I'm fed from the leaders if it's not supported by Scripture.
You are very creative in your scenarios. The rebuking we are speaking of has to do with doctrine primarily. Sure a woman should rebuke an elder on the spot but she should follow with a public accusation in fron of the elder body with her husband as her covering. Your "suppose" was very good though, first time I've heard that one but it can show us futher the Biblical way of handling things.
Women are equal in Christ, equal in prayer, equal in worship, etc., etc. But there is inequality in Biblical offices. The only exception is if you believe women can be elders, in that case an ordaine woman can rebuke an elder.
ds alluded to marriage, a wife should not rebuke a husband, she should entreat him. Discussion yes, strong discussion, yes, rebuke, no. Again, the theolgians who are listed her, who I graetly respect and have read exytensively, would absolutely disagree with women rebuking elders.
Hey DT, a good post for the future, no? Remember nationalism also. Thanks for my treatment here, I really do appreciate it. You guys love His Word.
jsu - where do those Scriptures give a woman a Biblical mandate to publicly rebuke an ordained elder? You ask me for Scripture, you provide me one instance where Scripture allows a woman to publicly rebuke an elder. Your argument is approval be Scriptural silence?
ds - Let me suggest that you take issue with Biblical issues, you certainly are more than capable. But further let me caution you to avoid substantive labeling which constitutes open rebuke. Would it be Biblically palatable for Mrs. Warren to publicly rebuke John MacArthur? You seem to have a gift for teaching, but for that gift to fully glorify God you must be sensitive to the complete mandate of Scripture.
What is lacking on the blogashere are ones that are run by women like you, and that are Scripturally substantive, covering a wide range of important issues, speaking truth and discipling women, while being sensitive to their God given place in Christ's body. That is a void today.
DS, "I chuckled aloud when I read the first verse you cited. I was just about to type that in to you."
You and I seem to be on the same page. I'm on page 1837 in my Bible, how about you? For those of you who are dying to know, that's page 1837 in the NASB MacArthur Study Bible (LOL):)
Rick, I wasn't citing those verses in referrence to the alternate discussion of women rebuking. I provided those verses for your 1st comment on this post. You said to anonymous,
"Anonymous - only ordained elders are Biblically given the resposibility to rebuke and reprove other ordained elders."
That is what I have been holding onto the whole time. I'm sure you knew that as well. But, since I have provided Scripture and you none, does that pronounce me the winner? Scripture WINS! And the Sola Scriptura fans go wild!
Let me state that our denomination does not ordain women. Women do not teach men Bible studies or Sunday school. Women do not pray, collect tithes and offerings, lead the singing, or read Scripture in our corporate worship services. Our churches are run by elders, but when a vote is necessary (i.e. election of officers, see Acts 6), because we are Covenantal, we practice heads of household voting. I just want to get all that out there so you will have no doubt as to my understanding of women's roles in the church. I serve my Lord and family by educating our children at home, by providing hospitality to others, and by serving the saints.
You stated:
"The only exception is if you believe women can be elders, in that case an ordaine woman can rebuke an elder."
Could Joyce Meyer (who is ordained) publicly rebuke Rick Warren? If I were to go to http://www.wcm.org/?gclid=CNHZzLqIo44CFQ9jHgodIw45Rw and become ordained online, could I then rebuke Rick Warren?
I know the above examples are absurd. I am trying to make a point.
Is the respect due to an "ordained pastor" contingent upon their faithfulness to preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and their meeting the Biblical qualifications for ordination?
jsu - wow, great standards at your church. I was being somewhat absurd about the ordained women thing, I guessed you did not espouse that.
The head of household voting is much better than a free for all voting, however I still believe it is patterned after democracy, it has no Scriptural teaching. Much of the voting is over money. Hmmm...
In reality, I think we agree in substance. From the little I have read I think women like ds are desperately needed in the body. My observation is the verbal rebuking which is a usurping of authority.
In definition the elders teach doctrine to the congregation and when one of the elders starts to drift Scripturally the other elders address that. If, for instance, ds was troubled by something one of the elders was teaching she would go with her husband to the elder body and humbly present her problem.
What she should not do is pass out a newsletter that not only confronts that elder's teachings, but calls him a false prophet. If his teachings are so unbiblical, and if the elders have sufficiently asked him to repent, they could collectively label him a false prophet.
In Warren's case he may be overly pragmatic in his methodology, his speaking at mormon gatherings may be ill advised (if is intentions are evangelistic), and some other issues that are suspect. But calling someone a false prophet is serious bussiness that is carelessly thrown around today.
And ordained elders such as Warren should only be officially labeled a false prophet by a group of elders. Misguided, compromiser, liberal, worldly, shallow, and other labels can be employed, but false prophet, heretic, and apostate are much more serious and should be carefully considered before using them.
Heads of Household voting is at my church. The men only vote to elect officers. They never vote on money or budgets.
How do you all elect elders/deacons if you do not vote?
If I thought one of the elders was teaching something unbiblical at my church, I would discuss it with my husband. If he agreed, he would go to the elders.
Were I to do this:
"What she should not do is pass out a newsletter that not only confronts that elder's teachings, but calls him a false prophet. "
I would be rebuked, as I should be.
I have a new question for you.
The elders at my church consider Rick Warren a false prophet. Now, am I allowed to state that?
Two things - the deacons are voted upon, so in that you are correct. The elders are ordained by the elder body without a vote.
If your body labeled Warren as a false prophet I would think you could echo those words. I would still consider that very strong, but your elders would be well within their Scriptural office to do so.
I think we are closer to agreement as a whole than I first thought. Your church seems very orthodox, where is it?
"I wonder what keeps you interested in debating issues with Men?"
Nothing implied, just a question. And hearing that you're married to an elder, I really wonder why you don't just discuss these issues with him alone.
I know DT has said that women can comment here, and I didn't say that you shouldn't comment. It's the debating part I question.
Have a wonderful Lords Day!
PS - I like your words; "I serve my Lord and family by educating our children at home, by providing hospitality to others, and by serving the saints." We home school as well!
I have no problem discussing things of God with women, it's great. My own website is the only one I have at the present time, I do not presently pastor.
After reviewing the church website, it would seem we would disagree on much. You ascribe some redemptive qualities to infant baptism (works), you do not believe in a secret rapture, and as we have already discussed you mix law with grace.
I was raised Lutheran, I will not return. Nice speaking with you.
"By contrast the word of God presents the sacraments as a true “means of grace” which, through the efficacious work of the Holy spirit, convey a blessing to believing recipients – those who keep God’s covenant."
That is from your website. Your church doesn't believe baptism saves, but as I said they do ascribe some redemtive qualities to it. They believe that baptism is the New Testament circumcision because they are covenant teachers that blur the distinction between the Old Covenant (the covenant maker is still living) and the New TESTAMENT (in which the covenant maker is dead and thereby leaves an inheritance and frees us to marry Him because the law to us is now dead).
I have taught and dialogued extensively about this as I'm sure so have you. I believe you to be my sister in Christ but we remain with different perspectives.
48 comments:
I think the author of the post is "right on." Pragmatism is running rampant in our churches. Sadly, many pastors have exchanged the truths of the Bible for the "truths" of man concerning how we are to worship. One example that comes to mind is the false prophet, Rick Warren, and his days of purpose which have been heralded as the way to grow your church. Sadly, many ignorant Christians (of all denominations) have blindly followed because the "numbers" seem to evidence Christian growth.
D. Stanfield
Let's not get out of hand with the "False Prophet" name calling. That I know of, Rick Warren is no Benny Hinn, who is biblically qualified as a false prophet.
From what I of know of Rick and his books, he seems to be a truly born-again follower of the Lord. His methods of reaching the culture that God has called him to reach may not suit all tastes, and neither should they. But to cast such a serious accusation against the man is uncalled for.
Unity in the church does not mean "Uniformity" in the church. Thank God for our differences. We should celebrate them and not wrongfully judge one another by them.
I read JSU's post, and I have to say that if the reason churches are trying to be atractional, so that people actually go to them and not stay home, is driven solely by numbers and money, then yes, it's sinful.
If, however, the reason they're attempting to be atractional, and rise above the 80% of churches who's attendance is plateaued or declining, is to cast more nets to bring more souls into the kingdom, then we should rejoice with them, and the angels, when sinners come to repentance.
Pragmatism, innovation, and vision beat death, declining, and doors closed any day.
May Christ be glorified!
Steve,
By virtue of public teaching/preaching, every Christian biblically has the right to rebuke and reproof, which includes Rick Warren.
Endless reasons specifically for him aren't needed to be reposted here.
Ask yourself this:
Since when is the Gospel supposed to sound good to the unsaved? Why are the unsaved flocking to church with friends and family in the hundreds to like minded churches of Rick Warren?
Anonymous - only ordained elders are Biblically given the resposibility to rebuke and reprove other ordained elders.
I agree with the overall observations of the post, however I would refrain from careless hyperbole. And I would add that many of us who are on the "right" side of sound doctrine are in need of a powerful move of God's Spirit that cleases us from the satified self righteousness we sometimes have over embracing truth.
Where is the Lord God of Elijah??
"Pragmatism, innovation, and vision beat death, declining, and doors closed any day."
Not if a false gospel is preached.
dss
A false dicotomy. Warren is like so many, he doesn't preach a false gospel in the strict sense, but without the passion and sacrifice that should accompany such a gospel it just blends into a covenient religious experience that although claimed, doesn't seem to alter many lives.
A friend comes into your house and sits down in the living room with you. He smiles and is very pleasant, and you converse for about five minutes. As he reaches for the newspaper he looks over at you and informs you that as he walked up to your home he noticed you master bedroom was engulfed in flames. He looks down smiling and reads the paper.
Would you believe him? No. Why? Because his demeaner indicates that what he has said could not possibly be true.
But if that same friend burst into your home yelling for everyone to get out because there is a large fire in you master bedroom, even though you haven't seen the fire for yourself your friend's demonstrative demeaner convinces you that at least this must be quickly investigated.
So when preachers stand smiling on the stage, upbeat and sharing jokes, when they happen to mention something about God's judgment (if they ever do) no one believes them, because in reality, most don't believe they believe it either.
Welcome to the American church, presenting the gospel as a pragmatic, costless equation, served in an upbeat friendly atmosphere without any hint of urgency, and using the attraction of entertainment and self help principles to draw aisle walkers (future givers) who are easily led in a short and convenient prayer. And then as if pretending to have exclusive access to the Lamb's Book of Life the counselor confidently pronounces them "saved".
The counselor has known the person for five minutes and on the basis of a repeated prayer he assures the person of eternal salvation. A process Eli Whitney would have been jealous of.
Anonymous,
You said:
"By virtue of public teaching/preaching, every Christian biblically has the right to rebuke and reproof, which includes Rick Warren."
Reproofing and rebuking wasn't dss's intention. She was simply slandering a Man she's probably never met, and couldn't tell you exactly what he believes.
When the bible speaks of reproofing and rebuking, it is to be done in the context of a local assembly where the members know one another and have the intention of building up one another.
Remember when the disciples told Jesus that someone not of their ranks was preaching in His name, and asked if they should stop him. What did Jesus say? If he's not against Me, then leave him alone.
Rick Warren is not against Jesus. With all the truly anti-Christian people out there, do we need to slander covenant members of our own body? This is sinful.
You also said: "Since when is the Gospel supposed to sound good to the unsaved? Why are the unsaved flocking to church with friends and family in the hundreds to like minded churches of Rick Warren?"
This is unbelievable! Someone mad and upset that unsaved people are opting to spend part of the Lord's day in a house of worship! Totally opposite of how the Lord feels about it. Do you think Jesus is as upset about them going to church as you are. NOT. He died for them remember.
Stanfield-
You said: ""Pragmatism, innovation, and vision beat death, declining, and doors closed any day."
Not if a false gospel is preached."
Could you please tell me what about Rick Warren's gospel is false, and what makes him a false prophet? Tell me what prophecies has he made in the name of God that haven't come to pass?
Rick-
I get your point about the urgency factor. Although not every instance in scripture when the gospel is presented is done so with the sense of urgency that you're saying Preachers should have.
Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Paul on Mars Hill. They didn't beg for a response right away. Not every conversation needs to lead to a conversion.
Henry (rick),
We have found more common ground. I LOVE the last two paragraphs of your post.
"Welcome to the American church,..."
I grieve over the state of the American church.
dss
Steve,
I am not slandering Rick Warren, just calling a spade a spade. I challenge you to google the words “Rick Warren false gospel.” Read some of the countless documented articles (Start with the one found at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/ingrid/gospel-warren.htm.)
See for yourself how he teaches other false religions (Mormons, Catholics, Jews) how to grow their “church” with purpose. (http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/05/rick_warren_wor.html). Here is his Purpose Driven Catholic page http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/40DayCampaigns/PurposeDrivenChurches/Catholics/PDCatholics.htm). That alone should be enough to label him a false prophet. What has light to do with darkness? Hmmm.... well when money is involved?????
Rick Warren teaches: "Learn To Love Yourself!"
The Bible teaches: "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal," John 12:25.
Rick Warren teaches: "Be true to yourself"
The Bible teaches: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9.
Rick Warren teaches: "God accepts us unconditionally"
The Bible teaches: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," John 3:36.
Rick Warren teaches: "Self-esteem still wobbly after all these years?"
The Bible teaches: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not....Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:18, 24.
Rick Warren teaches: "God doesn't expect perfection, but he does insist on honesty."
The Bible teaches: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," Matthew 5:48.
Rick Warren teaches: "Believe in yourself"
The Bible teaches: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16.
Rick Warren teaches: "You can believe what others say about you, or you can believe in yourself as does God."
The Bible teaches: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man," John 2:23-25.
Hey Steve,
I wasn't looking for anything on Warren, but "wham" here it was to be found in my daily surfing:
See what you think.
http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2007/08/rick-warren-said-what.html
I am a full bore, five point Arminian, but this where the free will camp gets in trouble. Becuase we believe Christ died for everyone, an because we beilieve averyong can believe, we assume that if we can just couch the message in a way that seems palatable to people we can remove the sticking points and get them to believe.
That is humanisim and it removes the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The offer is believe on the Lord Jesus, there is no earthly promise.
Some come to Christ and lose their marriage.
Some come to Christ and lose their job. And so it goes. The ONLY promise in the gospel is eternal life through Jesus Christ which of course includes the forgiveness of sins.
I read the article and agree with it completely. This has been bothering me for years as I watched churches become over-bloated self-indulgent messes.
I attended Calvary Chapel in 1970 when it was fairly small. (100-200 worshipers)Now it's huge!
When I left the southern California church and my commune to move to Athens, Georgia I was blessed to find a Christ-centered home church. We worship in our single minister's Queen Anne style home.
I'm appalled by the people who leave their otherwise wonderful churches because there are not enough programs for their children (or enough children),or they only sing those crummy boring old hymns, or don't have a choir (or a big enough one), or the ambiance needs changing, or they've become miffed with someone in the church, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
My response is:
If you stayed in the church there would be more children.
The hymns are wonderful mini-sermons and have such a wealth of worship, belief, praise and are poetry...if one takes the time to sing the verses mindfully, rather than just singing with the mind occupied by the day's worries. Plus the fact that you have a chance to connect with the long line of believers before you. It makes "worship" songs stand out as the self-indulgent things that they are.
A choir is not a necessity in the church; neither is incense and robes, beautiful decorations, etc.
If you're mad at someone in your church and want to leave, consider this: you will spend eternity with that person, so you might as well learn to get along with them now.
Sorry for the long post...got a lot of things on my mind, such as:
a need for prayer for all the suffering going on now;
the church in England (my heart is breaking);
the state of Europe and its waning populations, plus the rise of Islam in these places;
Islam itself and its spread over the world;
the possible loss of the places that have historic interest to Europeans and their dispersed children;
the number of children who are in foster care or up for adoption...some will never have a "home";
the state of indigenous people all over the world (shameful here in the U.S);
the need to rid ourselves of bad governing,graft,corruption,
pork barrels and lobbyists;
the loss of manners, civility, general kindness.
the increase in serial killers and mass murderers;
the increase in animal cruelty;
cock-fighting and dogfighting:
drugs;
drug lords and cartels;
growing drugs;
loss of national park forest land due to drug growth there;
whole towns hooked on Oxycontin;
everywhere where people are pitted one against another,persecuted and hated for their differences(Bosnia, Iraq, India come to mind);
the poor state of women in the world...being sold by their parents into slavery or prostitution, denied an education, denied the opportunity to work, cursed and killed for dishonoring the family ,
thrown out of their homes for being old or widowed, raped (the stupidest reason is for a virgin to be a cure for AIDS)
Now I've depressed myself; it's time for prayer that Jesus will be glorified in the midst of all this and that He will bring relief to us.
As Mike Myers says, "Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm a bit verklempt."
Becky
DSS-
You're greatly misrepresenting Rick's beliefs.
Example, You said: "Rick Warren teaches: "Believe in yourself"
The Bible teaches: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16."
Total misalignment! Rick isn't talking about salvation like the verse you quoted. In Saddleback's own Doctrinal statement off the church website, is says exactly how to be saved. From the site:
-ABOUT SALVATION
Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1-
Please refrain from further slander against one of God's annointed, and our brother in the Lord.
For all the websites you listed, I can list more who embrace Rick as a brother in the faith and support what the Lord's doing at Saddleback.
I looked at some the sites you listed and have to say some of these guys were sort of freaky. The blog authors that is.
Anyhow, have a good one. I know you wait to get back to your "Purpose Driven" book.
DS,
I am really grieved how many churches flock to the "numbers" infatuation. It's very sad.
Rick,
Where in the Bible does it say that only ordained elders can rebuke other elders? Is this a way of silencing those who call into question the leadership of the church?
Steve,
I would hardly call the comments of DS "slander". There is difference in challenging and slander. It is edifying to have other believers question each other because then iron sharpens iron. So by challenging the beliefs and sermons of Rick Warren, others may be sharpened to think.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/elder-blogs-some-blogs-are-devotional.html
Elders oversee the church body, not the reverse.
Rick,
I scanned your post for Scripture supporting your previous comment. My question still holds: "Where in the Bible...?" Even in your post you mention how Scripture is clear about your point, but yet you don't list the Scriptures.
I assume you believe only men are to be ordained elders.
I assume you believe that elders oversee the church.
With much Scriptural teaching on those points, where is youy Scriptural authority that gives divine license to a non orgaidned believer, much less a woman, to rebuke or reprove an elder?
That would surely be a departure from OT practices and the practices of the early church. Would it not seem incongruous that that any believer can rebuke his overseer? The body of overseers are called to also collectively oversee themselves.
When an accusation is brought before an elder there must be two witnesses (elders) so a decision can be made by the elder body. The idea that anyone can rebuke an elder is American, not eclesiastical. And that American practice runs rampant through many western churches.
"I believe in the priesthood of the believer and you're no better than me". The pervailing theory of church authority.
Steve,
What about the "Purpose Driven Catholics?" What about Rick Warren allowing Mormons and Jews to attend his seminars so that they can "have purpose driven churches?" If Mr. Warren really believed the statement on his website concerning salvation (which I need to go back and check out because my first impression was that there was no mention of sin or offending a Holy God), why would he teach these other false religions how to grow??? If he is concerned about the true salvation of souls, he should be warning them of the judgment to come, not promoting their "church growth" programs.
"Please refrain from further slander against one of God's annointed, and our brother in the Lord."
God's annointed... I am not so sure. I wonder how God feels about Mr. Warren's aid to false religions who are an abomination to Him.
Henry (rick),
I am a little curious here. If your wife does not agree with you theologically, is she allowed to voice her opinion? Would you allow her to use the Scriptures to try and make her case?
Are the women at your church allowed to discuss theology only as long as they agree with the men?
Rick,
I'm still waiting for your Scriptural support. Provide Scripture, and we can work from ther.
DSS-
You said: "What about the "Purpose Driven Catholics?" What about Rick Warren allowing Mormons and Jews to attend his seminars so that they can "have purpose driven churches?"
Again, I see your reasoning from a flawed evangelistic mind-set. What better place for Mormons or Catholics to be in than an Evangelical surrounding listening to an Evangelical Pastor talk about the Lord.
Do you think Jesus "allowed" non-believers to hear his sermons? You know He did, and so should we.If Rick let one of these non-believers speak about the tenets of spiritual life, that would be wrong. But to let them attend a purpose driven seminar, come on, no sin in that.
In fact, if we, the church in America, were "allowing" more non-believers to attend our "little church potlucks" we might do better at obeying the scripture about making disciples of all nations!
"why would he teach these other false religions how to grow???"
This is not what he's doing. The purpose driven series isn't about church growth, (although his critics make it that), it's simply about knowing the God who created you and living a life with meaning and purpose. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have to the fullest."
I encourage you to read Saddelbacks's doctrinal statement.
ds - You have changed the discussion, I never said women could not discuss theology or doctrine with the elders at their church. I said REBUKE. So you have changed the wording to misrepresent what I said, including asking about my wife. Everyone can discuss, but where is the Scriptural foundation for an unordained woman rebuking, publicly no less, an ordained elder?
Our generation is the first. You are obviously a student of the Word, I would be attentive to the aspect that I address because you can be of great benefit to the body (even I disagree with some of your theology) if you remain Scriptural in your approach.
Steve,
Are you serious?
"why would he teach these other false religions how to grow???"
"This is not what he's doing. The purpose driven series isn't about church growth, (although his critics make it that), it's simply about knowing the God who created you and living a life with meaning and purpose. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have to the fullest."
Why would a Jew want to attend a seminar that taught a saving relationship with Jesus Christ being portrayed as the only way one can find pupose in their life.? There are "purpose driven" synagogues now.... Are you suggesting these Jewish seminar attendees are taking back to their synagogues the message of Christ? Are the Purpose Driven Catholics (after attending the seminar) repenting of their idolatrous praying to Mary, works salvation, baptismal regeneration, etc. (after attending a Purpose Driven Seminar)... No way. I won't even get started on the Mormons.
It is a marketing strategy, plain and simple. I don't see how you can fail to see that.
Hey Henry (rick),
You stated this:
"With much Scriptural teaching on those points, where is youy Scriptural authority that gives divine license to a non orgaidned believer, much less a woman, to rebuke or reprove an elder?"
I assumed that this was directed at me for calling Rick Warren (who even as an ordained pastor has no kind of authority over me) a false prophet publicly. I then went on your blog, as you directed in another post, and read some interesting things concerning women on blogs and in the church.
I think my questions (and I should have posted this paragraph along with my questions the first time) stemmed from this paragraph found on your blog:
“But there are a number of blogs that act in the office of elder in their doctrinally corrective nature that are written and overseen by women. Now men and women are equal in Christ as children of the Father, but God has specifically taught us that women and men do not have the same callings in the church. How is it Scriptural that a woman can take doctrinal authority over men in the church? It is not, and it is clear that a woman cannot be an elder in the church therefore she cannot Scripturally correct another man much less an ordained preacher. It is blatantly against Biblical teaching for a woman to act as an elder no matter whether in a church building or in a blog capacity.”
So, if a woman does not agree with a man theologically, she is not allowed to present her argument from Scriptures because this may be viewed as "correcting" him... Hence, the questions.
For the record, a blog can not act in the office of elder. None of us on this blog have authority over any of the others. We are to “obey those who rule over you, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account.” Nobody “rules” over anyone else here on this blog or on any other blog. A blog is not the church.
Do the women at your church vote in congregational meetings?
DSS-
So far two Men, myself and Rick, have stated that you misrepresent your arguments regularly. Other Men have not seen things the way you see them in previous posts.
I wonder what keeps you interested in debating issues with Men?
I don't want to seem argumentative, and with a women no less, so I won't continue in my dialogue with you about this issue.
Our job as men is to lead, protect, provide, do battle, etc., within the culture and church, and not to debate with our sisters in the Lord.
I would encourage you to not debate with Rick either, as an ordained Pastor.
Peace!
JSU-
DSS wasn't challenging Rick Warren, she said he was a 'false prophet' who preached a 'false gospel.' Hard words, and unsubstantiated at that.
She was slandering him, not challenging him.
Rick challenged John McArthur in a recent post on his blog. This is much different. To not agree with others is fine, but to slander an evangelical brother in the Lord is sinful.
By the way, can I have some of the pudding pictured on your blog? ;)
"A blog is not the church."
Correct, believers are the church. So by your point a woman could not rebuke an elder in the church building but if she runs across him in the store she can publicly rebuke him because the store is not the church? You present a limited and edifice oriented view of the body of Christ.
"Do the women at your church vote in congregational meetings?"
Voting in churches is unscriptural and represents a cultural compromise to the behavior of democracies.
I enjoy discussion/debate, you seem to miss my point again. You are not an ordained elder, you should not publicly rebuke an ordained elder. Discuss, debate, even disagree, but calling Rick Warren a false prophet may or may not be true, but you are Scripturally forbidden to usurp his authority and puiblicly rebuke him.
I may strongly disagree with Ken Silva, but he is within his Scriptural calling and office to do what you should not.
Steve,
I love the pudding pic. I just said to myself, "that's the one!"
DS,
"Why would a Jew want to attend a seminar that taught a saving relationship with Jesus Christ..."
Well said!!! I think it's interesting how your points on these false religions were glossed over.
Rick,
I don't suggest pursuing this rebuking/ordained elder viewpoint since you can't provide Scripture. When church leaders are in error, they must be questioned. When they are heretical, they must called out! If my own pastor gets way off for some reason, I will not hesitate to defend Scripture at any cost. When I was young, my very own Sunday School teacher was gradually converting to Mormonism. When I sniffed it out in his lesson, I called him out in the classroom. Scripture has to be FIRST no matter who is leading! Provide Scripture why I shouldn't rebuke ordained people who are in error. Provide Scripture.
Well, since you were saved in 1994 you still might be considered young in the faith. But elders are overseers who are rebuked by other elders. Was your teacher an elder? The correct Scriptural formula is when bringing an accusation before an elder it must be before two witnesses(elders) and the elder against whom the accusation is being made.
Now the body of elders are the overseers and the Scripture commands us to obey them because they watch out for your souls. So if a congregation member converts to a free will perspective is he allowed to rebuke John MacAuthur because he believes he is defending the Scriptures? Of course not, there are Scriptural guidelines for confronting theological perspectives that retain the integrity of the ecclesiastical structue.
And even further, women should never rebuke an elder under any circumstances. Ask the dead theologians listed on this blog what they would think? Imagine Mrs.Edwards rebuking C.H.Spurgeon. Only in the genre of American freedom would we ever consider such a thing.
Next year we will get our wish as Mrs. Clinton is elected into the presidency fair and square. Will you then defend the process a good and Godly? Voting my friend is letting the carnal cesspool rule. God will have none of it, so I urge you not to vote next year but pray, not for America, but for the Americanized church of Jesus Christ.
Sorry - that last part was for free - no charge.
Rebuking an elder, and most certainly calling him a false prophet, is much more serious than writing about them in a antiseptic forum as the internet.
Henry (rick),
I am in the middle of reading your last post.
Let's take your viewpoint to an extreme.
"And even further, women should never rebuke an elder under any circumstances. Ask the dead theologians listed on this blog what they would think?"
If an ordained elder, asked a married woman in the congregation to have an affair with him, is she not allowed to reprove or rebuke him?
You stated that a woman should NEVER rebuke an elder UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...
Henry (rick),
"but you are Scripturally forbidden to usurp his authority and puiblicly rebuke him."
How did I usurp any "authority" that Rick Warren has?
Let me get this straight.
Would you agree with the following statement:
Rick Warren is a false prophet, even though he is ordained. Because I am a woman, it is unbiblical for me to call him a false prophet on a blog in a public forum.
Would you consider me to be violating Scripture by typing the following list?
Incomplete False Prophet List:
Benny Hinn
Joel Osteen
Joyce Meyer
Robert Schuller
Should I have asked my husband (who happens to be ordained) to come and type in the above list for me? If I had, would that have been accepted by you?
Rick,
*sigh* I still see no Scripture. Is it that hard to provide me with verses or are you altogether avoiding the subject?
1 Timothy 4:2
"Let no one despise your youth"
Though I may be young in Christ in comparison to you or others, realize that age doesn't equal godliness or biblical knowledge.
Eph 5:6
"Let no one deceive you with empty words..."
2 Thess 2:3
"Let no one deceive you by any means..."
Titus 2:12-15
"teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. SPEAK THESE THINGS, EXHORT, REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. LET NO ONE DESPISE YOU."
1 John 3:7
"Little children, let no one deceive you."
I won't sit back and eat what I'm fed from the leaders if it's not supported by Scripture.
Sola Scriptura
You are very creative in your scenarios. The rebuking we are speaking of has to do with doctrine primarily. Sure a woman should rebuke an elder on the spot but she should follow with a public accusation in fron of the elder body with her husband as her covering. Your "suppose" was very good though, first time I've heard that one but it can show us futher the Biblical way of handling things.
Women are equal in Christ, equal in prayer, equal in worship, etc., etc. But there is inequality in Biblical offices. The only exception is if you believe women can be elders, in that case an ordaine woman can rebuke an elder.
ds alluded to marriage, a wife should not rebuke a husband, she should entreat him. Discussion yes, strong discussion, yes, rebuke, no. Again, the theolgians who are listed her, who I graetly respect and have read exytensively, would absolutely disagree with women rebuking elders.
Hey DT, a good post for the future, no? Remember nationalism also. Thanks for my treatment here, I really do appreciate it. You guys love His Word.
Steve,
"I wonder what keeps you interested in debating issues with Men?"
I am not sure what this is supposed to imply.
DT, himself, stated that both men and women are welcome to discuss issues on this site.
I hope that you and your family have a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow.
dss
Jsu,
I chuckled aloud when I read the first verse you cited. I was just about to type that in to you.
dss
jsu - where do those Scriptures give a woman a Biblical mandate to publicly rebuke an ordained elder? You ask me for Scripture, you provide me one instance where Scripture allows a woman to publicly rebuke an elder. Your argument is approval be Scriptural silence?
ds - Let me suggest that you take issue with Biblical issues, you certainly are more than capable. But further let me caution you to avoid substantive labeling which constitutes open rebuke. Would it be Biblically palatable for Mrs. Warren to publicly rebuke John MacArthur? You seem to have a gift for teaching, but for that gift to fully glorify God you must be sensitive to the complete mandate of Scripture.
What is lacking on the blogashere are ones that are run by women like you, and that are Scripturally substantive, covering a wide range of important issues, speaking truth and discipling women, while being sensitive to their God given place in Christ's body. That is a void today.
DS,
"I chuckled aloud when I read the first verse you cited. I was just about to type that in to you."
You and I seem to be on the same page. I'm on page 1837 in my Bible, how about you? For those of you who are dying to know, that's page 1837 in the NASB MacArthur Study Bible (LOL):)
Rick,
I wasn't citing those verses in referrence to the alternate discussion of women rebuking. I provided those verses for your 1st comment on this post. You said to anonymous,
"Anonymous - only ordained elders are Biblically given the resposibility to rebuke and reprove other ordained elders."
That is what I have been holding onto the whole time. I'm sure you knew that as well. But, since I have provided Scripture and you none, does that pronounce me the winner? Scripture WINS! And the Sola Scriptura fans go wild!
Henry (rick),
Let me state that our denomination does not ordain women. Women do not teach men Bible studies or Sunday school. Women do not pray, collect tithes and offerings, lead the singing, or read Scripture in our corporate worship services. Our churches are run by elders, but when a vote is necessary (i.e. election of officers, see Acts 6), because we are Covenantal, we practice heads of household voting. I just want to get all that out there so you will have no doubt as to my understanding of women's roles in the church. I serve my Lord and family by educating our children at home, by providing hospitality to others, and by serving the saints.
You stated:
"The only exception is if you believe women can be elders, in that case an ordaine woman can rebuke an elder."
Could Joyce Meyer (who is ordained) publicly rebuke Rick Warren? If I were to go to http://www.wcm.org/?gclid=CNHZzLqIo44CFQ9jHgodIw45Rw and become ordained online, could I then rebuke Rick Warren?
I know the above examples are absurd. I am trying to make a point.
Is the respect due to an "ordained pastor" contingent upon their faithfulness to preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and their meeting the Biblical qualifications for ordination?
dss
jsu,
Different pages, same verse. I was on page 1247 of my 1599 Geneva Bible!
dss
jsu - wow, great standards at your church. I was being somewhat absurd about the ordained women thing, I guessed you did not espouse that.
The head of household voting is much better than a free for all voting, however I still believe it is patterned after democracy, it has no Scriptural teaching. Much of the voting is over money. Hmmm...
In reality, I think we agree in substance. From the little I have read I think women like ds are desperately needed in the body. My observation is the verbal rebuking which is a usurping of authority.
In definition the elders teach doctrine to the congregation and when one of the elders starts to drift Scripturally the other elders address that. If, for instance, ds was troubled by something one of the elders was teaching she would go with her husband to the elder body and humbly present her problem.
What she should not do is pass out a newsletter that not only confronts that elder's teachings, but calls him a false prophet. If his teachings are so unbiblical, and if the elders have sufficiently asked him to repent, they could collectively label him a false prophet.
In Warren's case he may be overly pragmatic in his methodology, his speaking at mormon gatherings may be ill advised (if is intentions are evangelistic), and some other issues that are suspect. But calling someone a false prophet is serious bussiness that is carelessly thrown around today.
And ordained elders such as Warren should only be officially labeled a false prophet by a group of elders. Misguided, compromiser, liberal, worldly, shallow, and other labels can be employed, but false prophet, heretic, and apostate are much more serious and should be carefully considered before using them.
Henry (rick),
Heads of Household voting is at my church. The men only vote to elect officers. They never vote on money or budgets.
How do you all elect elders/deacons if you do not vote?
If I thought one of the elders was teaching something unbiblical at my church, I would discuss it with my husband. If he agreed, he would go to the elders.
Were I to do this:
"What she should not do is pass out a newsletter that not only confronts that elder's teachings, but calls him a false prophet. "
I would be rebuked, as I should be.
I have a new question for you.
The elders at my church consider Rick Warren a false prophet. Now, am I allowed to state that?
Two things - the deacons are voted upon, so in that you are correct. The elders are ordained by the elder body without a vote.
If your body labeled Warren as a false prophet I would think you could echo those words. I would still consider that very strong, but your elders would be well within their Scriptural office to do so.
I think we are closer to agreement as a whole than I first thought. Your church seems very orthodox, where is it?
Henry (rick),
See, we can agree on things after all. Now if we could just work out this Calvinism/Arminian thing..
Our church website is www.zionpresbyterian.org.
Does your church have a website?
DSS-
"I wonder what keeps you interested in debating issues with Men?"
Nothing implied, just a question. And hearing that you're married to an elder, I really wonder why you don't just discuss these issues with him alone.
I know DT has said that women can comment here, and I didn't say that you shouldn't comment. It's the debating part I question.
Have a wonderful Lords Day!
PS - I like your words; "I serve my Lord and family by educating our children at home, by providing hospitality to others, and by serving the saints." We home school as well!
I have no problem discussing things of God with women, it's great. My own website is the only one I have at the present time, I do not presently pastor.
I have worked out the Calvin/Arminian thing (ha)
After reviewing the church website, it would seem we would disagree on much. You ascribe some redemptive qualities to infant baptism (works), you do not believe in a secret rapture, and as we have already discussed you mix law with grace.
I was raised Lutheran, I will not return. Nice speaking with you.
Henry (rick),
I enjoyed our discussion as well.
To clarify:
"You ascribe some redemptive qualities to infant baptism (works),"
No. I don't believe that infant baptism saves infants any more than adult baptism saves adults. I abhor the teaching of baptismal regeneration.
"you do not believe in a secret rapture,"
I do not, as there is not a scripture verse that teaches this.
"and as we have already discussed you mix law with grace."
We are saved through grace, not through keeping the Law. We strive to keep God's Law because we are saved, and want to please our most Holy Lord.
dss
"By contrast the word of God presents the sacraments as a true “means of grace” which, through the efficacious work of the Holy spirit, convey a blessing to believing recipients – those who keep God’s covenant."
That is from your website. Your church doesn't believe baptism saves, but as I said they do ascribe some redemtive qualities to it. They believe that baptism is the New Testament circumcision because they are covenant teachers that blur the distinction between the Old Covenant (the covenant maker is still living) and the New TESTAMENT (in which the covenant maker is dead and thereby leaves an inheritance and frees us to marry Him because the law to us is now dead).
I have taught and dialogued extensively about this as I'm sure so have you. I believe you to be my sister in Christ but we remain with different perspectives.
Maranatha
Post a Comment