Accountability groups classified as gangs in Detroit
DETROIT — Noting a rise in accountability-group-related violence, Detroit police are keeping a close eye on church-based men's groups.
"Gang violence has dropped, but Christian accountability group violence is up sharply," says police chief Roy Gilman. "It's a sub-set of suburban crime we're concerned about."
Detroit is the home of the "radical accountability" movement, where once-tame breakfast meetings have been amped up into gang-style networks. Instead of applying peer pressure to prod one another to wholesome lifestyles, these groups have started "hazing and harassing" non-compliant members, police say.
One Presbyterian man, who quit his accountability group and is now in police protective custody, says his former homeboys pounced on him after he broke a promise to his wife.
"I told her I'd take her to a bed and breakfast on Mackinac Island, but I went fishing instead," he says. "On Monday morning, the guys in my group were waiting for me in the parking lot at my workplace with brass knuckles and family-edition Bibles. They worked me over pretty good, and said they'd pray for me."
Sociologists say accountability groups are following a predictable path into increasingly aggressive behavior.
"Like gangs, they have codes of conduct and well-defined behaviors they deem acceptable, and if you run afoul of them, you suffer the group's wrath," says Elizabeth Arnold, sociologist from the University of Pennsylvania. "I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing accountability drive-by shootings in the near future."
Detroit police are handing out flyers in neighborhoods and churches warning of the danger of men's-group violence, and urging kids not to be drawn in. •
Monday, June 28, 2004
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Looks like I may be creating a blog regarding defending Rick Warren soon... :) Here is a reposting of "Is God Dead?" and someone's response to it in a club that I am in and my response to them.
Is God Dead?
1st Revision
By
Dave McDowell
“’Whither is God?’ he cried, ‘I shall tell you where. We have killed him—you and I…God is dead…And we have killed him’” Nietzsche said it. And I must admit, to a certain extent, I agree. “God is not dead,” you say. “He is alive and well.” Well, where is he? You certainly do not find his influence in the Roman Catholic Church these days, a church that has been eaten up and spit out by a clergy sex scandal. Before you start thumping your chest in pride because you are a Protestant, keep in mind that the Episcopal Church appointed it’s first openly gay bishop last year. Mainline Protestant denominations saw a dramatic drop in membership and attendance in the 1990’s This does not include the mammoth Southern Baptist Convention, although the pace of it’s growth did fall dramatically. It seems that the larger denominations have lost their influence in the wake of relativistic teaching and the dichotomy of their stances. The church seems to be at best split in two, at worst, as Nietzsche described God…dead.
However, the same article that trumpeted Mainline Protestantism’s apparent slow death also noted that some denominations did grow. Believe it or not, even in the wake of disaster, the Catholic Church was among them as well as the heretical Mormon church and the Assemblies of God, my old stomping grounds. The study says, “Scholars say the data also show the Pentecostal movement has established itself within mainstream Christianity, attracting middle-class churchgoers with so-called ‘manifestations of the Holy Spirit’ such as speaking in tongues.” It seems that people seeking the truth of Christianity are drawn by experience rather than liturgy. To this denomination, and others patterned after it, God is not dead…and they seem to offer strong arguments for it, namely, for them, the church experience has become relevant.
So is God really dead? Or has it just lost its relevance? If God is dead, I agree with Neitzsche: we have killed him. Not in the literal sense, but through our rigidness and closed minds. We climb up on our high horses and look upon the unchosen world with disdain and we organize our churches to keep out the seeker of truth and to promote our version of social Christianity. Well guess what? That world, which we thought stupid for not seeing the truth, has turned up it’s nose to our hypocrisy and have fled out the doors of churches to find their own significance elsewhere. The fastest growing religion in the United States is no longer Christianity, but Islam. It seems they have offered to people a greater sense of significance, particularly among the black community, where they are also the fastest growing religion. My theory is that the reason people have retreated from Christianity and moved to other religions is that Christianity has lost its relevance in the United States.
However, although Islam carries the honor of being the fastest growing religion in the country and the fastest growing religion among the black community, it does not have the honor of having the fastest growing community of believers. That honor belongs to Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, California. Surprisingly, Saddleback is a Southern Baptist Church, although you would never know that by their style and their growth. Their pastor is Rick Warren, who is most famous for his two “purpose-driven” books. The first book, The Purpose Driven Church came out in 1995 and has sold more than one million copies in twenty different languages. Supporters of the book include W. A. Criswell (who wrote the foreword), Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, Adrian Rogers, and Jack Hayford. But Warren is known more for his recent book The Purpose Driven Life that has sold more than five million copies and has spent numerous weeks on top of the New York Times Best Seller List. One website describes Warren as having “bad reputation in conservative circles.” This seems to be the understatement of the year. Fundamentalists seem to abhor him claiming, “he misuses the Bible, stretching the meaning of passages or even giving passages a meaning that is foreign to them.”
Warren’s beliefs about church structure seemed to be summed up well in a book review posted online:
“The thesis of The Purpose Driven Church is that when churches think first about their health, growth is sure to follow. "If your church is healthy," writes Rick Warren, "growth will occur naturally. Healthy, consistent growth is the result of balancing the five biblical purposes of the church." These five purposes are to "Love the Lord with all your heart," "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Go and make disciples," "[Baptize] them," and "[Teach] them to obey." And those purposes can only be accomplished, argues Warren, when church leaders stop thinking about church-building programs and shift their focus to a "people-building process" involving fellowship, discipleship, worship, and evangelism. Warren, the founder of the fastest-growing Baptist church in American history, has taught seminars to thousands of pastors from all over the world, many of whom have successfully implemented his techniques.”
Unfortunately, Warren has his share of critics. One website says:
“Warren mocks churches which ‘seem to think that the 1950s was the golden age, and they are determined to preserve that era in their church’ (p. 55). He later makes it clear what he means by this. He encourages young pastors to leave behind that old-fashioned church music in favor of jazz or rock or whatever turns your people on! He encourages churches to imitate the culture and "dress down" for church…He is desperately trying to be relevant, and in the process has lost all sense of being ‘set apart.’ Walking into church with food and drink, dressed down as if at the mall, and hearing rock & jazz music may be relevant, but it is NOT much different from the world.
Interestingly though, the same website elsewhere says, “Rick Warren's church (and others like it) have attracted thousands. His methods do work. He says that the reason for the spectacular growth has been his emphasis on creating a ‘purpose driven church.’” However, the author contributes Warren’s success to pragmatism.
Another critic is Nathan Busenitz of Shepherd’s Fellowship “an association of churches rallying around the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, the importance of expository preaching, and the centrality of a biblical philosophy of ministry.” He sums up the basic fundamentalist view in his final assessment: “While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.” My favorite one, I believe is this gross straw man representation of Warren’s beliefs: “The Purpose-Driven Church is based on the (unbiblical) concept that we should aim to make sinners feel comfortable at church.”
Whether or not you agree with Warren’s methodology, you cannot deny the numerical success of Saddleback. As of the time of this writing, it is fast approaching 20,000 in attendance. According to Warren, the majority of the membership of his church is not transfer growth, as in members coming from another church, but rather conversion growth of previous unbelievers. If the conversions are genuine, and I believe they are, this is one of the most successful churches in the history of the world. As a matter of fact, the only way you can attack Warren is by denying that these conversions are genuine. That usually is the basic ploy of fundamentalists and others who attack his methodology.
One of most interesting things to note is that the same people who criticize Warren’s methodology are the same people who will not offer an alternative. They insist on using the same tired out methods that they have been using for over one hundred years even though it is very clear that this country has moved from a modern context to a postmodern one. These are the same people who slink in the shadows because their priest has become a child-molester. These are the same people who sit in the pew of the Episcopal Church and listen to a gay heretic blaspheme the Word of God. These are the same people who sit in a church pew like the frozen chosen and do not get out and do the work of the ministry.
Is God dead? To the people who are content to sit on a pew week after week and criticize one of the most successful evangelists in the history of the United States, God is dead. He is dead because they have killed Him. At least their God is dead. My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels, just to name a few, who do not criticize obvious works of God and who continue to engage this world with the real gospel, the one of love and not of criticism and hate. These men infect their individual churches with the fire of the love of God and, as a result, wonder of wonders, they grow!
God, let us not grow weary in well doing! Let us spur on the men of You who in their faithfulness to continue to spread your love and let us shun those of a critical spirit who seek to tear down the workings of Your Spirit and to kill God with their futile ramblings. Let us remind those who would criticize Your move in the words of my friend Steve Sparks, a youth pastor in Jackson, Michigan: “I like the way he does it better than the way you don’t do it.”
Friedrich Nietsche, “The Gay Science,” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. And trans. W. Kauffman (New York Viking, 1954), p. 95.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N40/long-5.40w.html
Ibid
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030904-stinger02.htm
http://www.westchasechurch.org/missions.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/pdc.htm
Ibid
http://www.challies.com/archives/000037.html
Ibid
Ibid
http://flashmarket.com/a/0310201063/Purpose_Driven%C2%AE_Church_The.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Letter/v8n2.htm
Ibid
http://www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/
http://www.biblebb.com/files/pdc.htm
http://www.christianity-books.com/PurposeDriven_Church_The_0310201063.html
Dave,
Since your posting was a response to mine, the clear inference is that me and those like myself who simply desire to know God and to please him have "killed him" since I wish to, as the Bible commands, test the spirits and be a Berean. This is a most reckless and intemperate charge, not to mention uncharitable, to put it charitably as I can. My guess is that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the ministry of Nathan Busenitz or the
ministry of any of the other Warren critics you quoted, but instead denounce them in much the same manner as you accuse Warren's critics of denouncing him. They offered reasoned critiques (whether the criticism itself is right or not), sadly you do not.
I have no desire to be contentious or go "heresy hunting" but I certainly think comparing ministries with the scriptural model can be helpful from time to time (but not very often, it really can be an unhealthy and unprofitable pursuit), just as we should examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith, while avoiding a morbid introspection. The thread to which I responded was by far the most popular one since I've been on here and
since Dr. Gary seemed puzzled as to what all the fuss was about, I figured I would weigh in with my two cents. To say that is killing God is patently absurd. There are many who have very fruitful ministries who have offered criticism of Warren and others. And regarding Islam, many seeker sensitive types are very friendly toward it (usually characterizing it as a religion of peace) and generally shy away from the exclusive claims of the gospel, since they are fundamentally man-centered (can a self-consciously
seeker-sensitive ministry be otherwise?) Franklin Graham I suppose would be an exception re: Islam although I wouldn't really include him within their camp since he is an evangelist and not a pastor. His comments in the wake of 9/11 were certainly a pleasant surprise to me and are apparently born out of his experiences in his humanitarian work in the Sudan.
You quote some of Warren's critics, and instead of engaging them on the merits, you simply state they are wrong, that you believe most of Warren's converts are genuine (offering no evidence whatsoever and not even a link or anything pertaining to Warren's gospel, the message to which they responded) and offer only ad hominem attacks against his critics. The Busenitz quote you include seems to be a reasonable criticism (I note
that he did not call Warren a heretic or false teacher or any other perjorative term), but your only response is to call him a fundamentalist, as if that perjorative term is enough to rest your case upon. Go back and read my post again, particularly the first paragraph. If this is the message that Warren preaches consistently, then God bless him. Again, I confessed in that post that I was not as familiar with his ministry as I am with Schuller's and others, and did say that it seemed to be more biblically oriented and maybe more exclusive (in the sense that it consistently preaches that Jesus is the only way to God, which is my sense of it) than Schuller, Hybels et al. even though Schuller was a mentor to and is a strong influence upon Warren. (Schuller has no problem with Mormons, Muslims, etc in heaven and said he would not be troubled if his grandchildren became Muslims.) In fact I did not directly criticize Warren at all, since I am generally unfamiliar with him. (I would add that he is unique indeed if most of his membership is made up of "new converts" or the unchurched because "seeker-sensitive" methods generally result in transfer growth instead). But the clear inference from your post is that I have "killed God" (I realize it is an old article, but it was posted in
response to my post).
This list is entitled Reformed-Charismatic, but the "killing God" charge is
something I would expect to hear from a radical charismatic, anti-reformed writer like William D'Arteaga (or perhaps Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch), who embraces charismatic phenomena in voodoo, various cults, etc as being of the Holy Spirit, saying that Reformed people and Fundamentalists (characterising them all as Pharisees) quench the Spirit so He must manifest himself through cults instead. And your enthusiasm for Warren has more in common with Charles Finney and his belief that revival could come at a time of his choosing thorough the application of particular methods than it does with any stream of Reformed thought or indeed the truth that God is sovereign in salvation, as in all else.
You write: "My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels." I would note that all of these men are Arminian (nothing wrong with that, btw and I think Rogers is a good preacher despite his recent attacks upon Calvinism and his stated determination to expel it from the SBC). Are there no Reformed or
Calvinist leaders in whom your "God is alive and well and continues to move and work?" John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and John Piper are just a few that I would commend to you. I suppose MacArthur and Sproul wouldn't qualify since they are cessationist and tend to be critical at times of charismatic and seeker-sensitive ministries. I would note that MacArthur's organization is the largest Protestant organization in LA county--so
much for "frozen chosen", and I would doubt that his worship service much resembles his father's (who was also a pastor) of the '50's either, he uses modern music, etc. Sproul has probably done more than anyone else in the last 25 years to popularize Reformed doctrine. Well then, I guess Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, B.B. Warfield, J. Grescham Machen, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones (he moved to an essentially cessationist position after witnessing the excesses of the charismatic movement in the '60's) just to name a few, wouldn't qualify either since they also didn't hesitate to denounce false teaching (and in some cases, questionable methods employed by otherwise sound teachers, as in Lloyd-Jones' refusal to endorseGraham because of his cooperation with apostate liberals and Roman Catholics and thus muddying his message and violating the biblical injunction to be equally yoked) when they saw it....
Busenitz wrote: "While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.”
Would you seriously have us believe that Warren's book and ministry better expounds "foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical" than say, John Piper's (not a cessationist btw, but close to his friend Wayne Grudem's teachings in that regard) R.C. Sproul's, John MacArthur's or Adrian Rogers for that matter?
Dave, at times, I have profited from what you've written on this list. Now please respond with facts and show us where Busenitz (and I) err instead of giving us a half-cocked diatribe and more hominem attacks. If I'm not mistaken, Busenitz is affiliated with John MacArthur's ministry. I'm sure you would have disagreements with his ministry, as do I (namely, dispensational eschatology, moderate use of alcohol and perhaps, his
cessationism) but that doesn't change the fact that Busenitz's observations would seem to be valid, and that this ministry you cited has in fact been one of the most fruitful evangelical ministries in this country over the last 30 years, despite your dogmatic statement that it and others have "killed God" and have not and are not bearing fruit, and are "not doing it". You rail against Warren's critics because he seems to have had
visible results for the Lord. And I don't think anyone would assert that some good has not been done there and that there have not been many genuine conversions. But at best I'd say that Warren's books are milk for babes in Christ. And Christians really should lose their milk-teeth at some point, shouldn't they? (I think Paul had something to say on that point :) ) You talk about methodology. From what I understand, MacArthur's methods to name one critic whom you so evidently despise) are quite modern, but his
message is not. Generally speaking, it is the same message that has been preached by the true church for the last 2,000 years. Is Warren's? Where is hell in his message? It was certianly prominent in Christ's. The deemphasis on hell and sin in Warren's message accounts as much for his results than do the use of rock or jazz music, etc. A better and more biblical method is that employed for decades by evangelist Ray Comfort(http://www.livingwaters.com), best known for the book and sermon "Hell's
Best Kept Secret", and a charismatic too, if you must know.
Should evangelistic methods be examined in light of a changing cultural situation from modernism to post-modernism? No doubt about it. But this should be done with an eye perhaps to how the message is presented and at times by not using jargon, church-speak, etc, and not by a change in the essence of the message itself. I would submit that so-called seeker-sensitive ministries are on the wrong track, ceding too much to the world and the spirit of the age and offering a watered-down truth, if they offer it at all. I hope I have it wrong, that I have missed something or misunderstood somewhere but if you say that the methods employed by the ministries you tout (namely Warren's and Hybels') that are chiefly characterized by a deemphasis on sin and hell and that are very short on
doctrine are what is necessary to reach postmoderns, and that anyone who protests against this "kills God" and "is not doing it" unless they hop on the bandwagon then I do not hesitate to say that this is a doctrine of demons.
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who
shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having
itching ears;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the
creation of God;
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I
will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and
have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and
miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou
mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and
that
the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with
eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous
therefore,
and repent.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my
voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the
churches.
Here's my response:
“Since your posting was a response to mine, the clear inference is that me and those like myself who simply desire to know God and to please him have "killed him" since I wish to, as the Bible commands, test the spirits and be a Berean. This is a most reckless and intemperate charge, not tomention uncharitable, to put it charitably as I can.”
Chris, this was an essay that I wrote about six or so months ago after I began to attend a “seeker-sensitive” church and was moderately criticized by some of my friends and family. It was in no way directed at you personally, but I do sense that I hit a nerve. I consider myself a “Berean” too and in no way meant to discourage Bible study. My point was that we have killed God’s effectiveness by shunning the move of the Spirit.
“My guess is that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the ministry of Nathan Busenitz or the ministry of any of the other Warren critics you quoted, but instead denounce them in much the same manner as you accuse Warren's critics of denouncing him. They offered reasoned critiques (whether the criticismitself is right or not), sadly you do not.”
You are right when you say that I am not familiar with Nathan Busentiz’s ministry. I am familiar with some of the others. Most of the research was done on the internet. I never denounced any ministry other than to point out that they are not doing as effective of a job as they could in a postmodern context.
“I have no desire to be contentious or go ‘heresy hunting’ but I certainly think comparing ministries with the scriptural model can be helpful from time to time (but not very often, it really can be an unhealthy and unprofitable pursuit), just as we should examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith, while avoiding a morbid introspection. The thread to which I responded was by far the most popular one since I've been on here and since Dr. Gary seemed puzzled as to what all the fuss was about, I figured Iwould weigh in with my two cents.”
I must confess that I sometimes do not read all the posts and simply scanned the email and also added my two cents using an essay that I wrote a few months back.
“As I said, To say that is killing God is patently absurd.”
Not so. What is absurd is when a good “Berean” writes off Warren because of his success. Most of the people that I quoted attacked Warren because they said that his church and teachings were not biblical. I offer that Warren’s church model is the most biblical one that I’ve seen.
“There are many who have very fruitful ministries who have offered criticism of Warren and others.”
Again, when I said that these ministries were “killing God,” I was using hyperbole to make a point.
“And regarding Islam, many seeker sensitive types are very friendly toward it (usually characterizing it as a religion of peace) and generally shy away from the exclusive claims of the gospel, since they are fundamentally man-centered (can a self-consciously seeker-sensitive ministry be otherwise?)”
You claim that I offer no proof for my claims and you commit the same fallacy with this remark. I will say that when it come to my own church, Metro South Church in Flat Rock, Michigan, www.metrosouth.com ) that it is untrue. You call “seeker-sensitive” church “man-centered.” You first need to clarify what you would mean by a God-centered church. If my church could be considered man-centered, it is only because Jesus “came to seek and to save that which was lost.” If that is man-centered, then we are guilty as charged.
“Franklin Graham I suppose would be an exception re: Islam although I wouldn't really include him within their camp since he is an evangelist and not a pastor. His comments in the wake of 9/11 were certainly a pleasant surprise to me and are apparently born out of his experiences in his humanitarian work in the Sudan.”
Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand.
“You quote some of Warren's critics, and instead of engaging them on the merits, you simply state they are wrong, that you believe most of Warren's converts are genuine (offering no evidence whatsoever and not even a link or anything pertaining to Warren's gospel, the message to which they responded) and offer only ad hominem attacks against his critics.“
Chris, how can I prove that Warren’s converts are legitimate? Only God knows the heart. If you can prove your converts are genuine, I’d like to hear how. My whole point was that Warren’s gospel is the legitimate gospel. He can defend himself. Read his book. One million others have. Are you one of them?
And how did I offer ad hominem attacks. I did not attack them. I barely attacked their ministry. I only said that they have effectively killed God (using a hyberbole) by not allowing the Spirit of God to move and by not changing the style of their services to reach more people.
“The Busenitz quote you include seems to be a reasonable criticism (I note thathe did not call Warren a heretic or false teacher or any other perjorative term), but your only response is to call him a fundamentalist, as if that perjorative term is enough to rest your case upon.”
Of course it was reasonable. And I never called Busenitz a heretic. Are you inferring that I did? As far as the term fundamentalist is concerned, I would not consider myself a fundamentalist even though I would believe essentially the same things. That word has become a negative word, even in Christian circles. The people that still call themselves “fundamentalists” are usually the people that lob these ludicrous arguments against Warren.
“Go back and read my post again, particularly the first paragraph. If this is the message that Warren preaches consistently, then God bless him.”
Well, I’ve already stated that I did not read the post and was merely adding my two cents. By the way, God has blessed Rick Warren.
“Again, I confessed in that post that I was not as familiar with his ministry as I am with Schuller's and others, and did say that it seemed to be more biblically-oriented and maybe more exclusive (in the sense that it consistently preaches that Jesus is the only way to God, which is my sense of it) than Schuller, Hybels et al. even though Schuller was a mentor to and is a strong influence upon Warren. (Schuller has no problem with Mormons, Muslims, etc in heaven and said he would not be troubled if his grandchildren became Muslims.) In fact I did not directly criticize Warren at all, since I am generally unfamiliar with him. (I would add that he is unique indeed if most of his membership is made up of "new converts" or the unchurched because "seeker-sensitive" methods generally result in transfergrowth instead). But the clear inference from your post is that I have "killed God" (I realize it is an old article, but it was posted in response to my post). “
Chris, do not criticize my essay about Warren when, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with his ministry. Please, be a good “Berean” (something you call yourself) and do your homework before being critical. I’ve spent years doing mine and, as a Gen-X person, have every right to be critical of modern-day American Christian religiosity that does not seem to have a purpose and is so disorganized and divided that it is not effective. If you want to make the argument that modern-day American Christianity is being effective, it better be convincing.
“This list is entitled Reformed-Charismatic, but the "killing God" charge issomething I would expect to hear from a radical charismatic, anti-reformedwriter like William D'Arteaga (or perhaps Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch), who embraces charismatic phenomena in voodoo, various cults, etc as being ofthe Holy Spirit, saying that Reformed people and Fundamentalists (characterising them all as Pharisees) quench the Spirit so He must manifest himself through cults instead.”
Hyperbole, Chris. Hyperbole.
“And your enthusiasm for Warren has more in common with Charles Finney and his belief that revival could come at a time of his choosing thorough the application of particular methods than it does with any stream of Reformed thought or indeed the truth that God is sovereign in salvation, as in all else.”
What? I never said that following Warren’s method would lead to a revival. I simply argued that his method is the most effective and biblical. Talk about your red herrings!
“You write: ‘My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels.’ I would note that all of these men are Arminian (nothing wrong with that, btw and I think Rogers isa good preacher despite his recent attacks upon Calvinism and his stated determination to expel it from the SBC). “
If you will notice, these are all men that came out in support of Warren’s book and ministry. That is why I used them.
“Are there no Reformed or Calvinist leaders in whom your "God is alive and well and continues to move and work?" John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and John Piper are just a few thatI would commend to you. I suppose MacArthur and Sproul wouldn't qualify since they are cessationist and tend to be critical at times of charismatic and seeker-sensitive ministries. I would note that MacArthur's organization is the largest Protestant organization in LA county--so muchfor "frozen chosen", and I would doubt that his worship service muchresembles his father's (who was also a pastor) of the '50's either, he uses modern music, etc. Sproul has probably done more than anyone else in the last 25 years to popularize Reformed doctrine. Well then, I guess Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, B.B. Warfield, J. Grescham Machen, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones (he moved to an essentially cessationist position after witnessing the excesses of the charismatic movement in the '60's) just to name a few, wouldn't qualify either since they also didn't hesitate to denounce false teaching (and in some cases, questionable methods employed by otherwise sound teachers, as in Lloyd-Jones' refusal to endorseGraham because of his cooperation with apostate liberals and RomanCatholics and thus muddying his message and violating the biblical injunction to be equally yoked) when they saw it.... “
You asked, “Are there no Reformed or Calvinist leaders in whom your ‘God is alive and well and continues to move and work?’” This is another fallacy. None of the people that you mentioned have come out in support of Warren’s ministry and that was what I was dealing with.
“Busenitz wrote: ‘While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.’ Would you seriously have us believe that Warren's book and ministry better expounds "foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical"than say, John Piper's (not a cessationist btw, but close to his friend Wayne Grudem's teachings in that regard) R.C. Sproul's, John MacArthur's or Adrian Rogers for that matter?”
It is true that Busenitz’s criticisms of Warren are theological. What I think he failed to see was that Warren’s book is much more about church organization and his philosophy of church ministry than theology. Maybe to you the two go hand in hand, but to me, they do not. In my humble opinion, Busenitz did the same thing you accused me of doing: not dealing with the arguments. Chris, while you may be able to successfully argue that Warren is not as good as a biblical exogete, if that was enough to make a church unbiblical then we would all have unbiblical churches.
“Dave, at times, I have profited from what you've written on this list. Now please respond with facts and show us where Busenitz (and I) err instead of giving us a half-cocked diatribe and more hominem attacks.”
Well, you took my “God is dead” literary device way too literally. And, as I mentioned, Busenitz approached Warren from the wrong point of view.
“If I'm not mistaken, Busenitz is affiliated with John MacArthur's ministry. I'm sure you would have disagreements with his ministry, as do I (namely,dispensational eschatology, moderate use of alcohol and perhaps, his cessationism) but that doesn't change the fact that Busenitz's observations would seem to be valid, and that this ministry you cited has in fact been one of the most fruitful evangelical ministries in this country over thelast 30 years, despite your dogmatic statement that it and others have "killed God" and have not and are not bearing fruit, and are "not doing it". You rail against Warren's critics because he seems to have had visible results for the Lord. And I don't think anyone would assert that some good has not been done there and that there have not been many genuine conversions.”
Well, Chris, I’ve never seen a tree have invisible fruits. Now before you go mischaracterizing me again, I am not saying that any of the men you listed above are not great men who do great works for the Lord and that there have been some visible fruit in their ministries. I’m only arguing that Warren, at least in church organization, has done it better.
“But at best I'd say that Warren's books are milk for babes in Christ. And Christians really should lose their milk-teeth at some point, shouldn't they? (I think Paul had something to say on that point :) )”
You’ve never read Warren’s book, have you? I would bet you’ve never heard him preach. It’s real easy. Just go to his website. His preaching is anything but milk.
“You talk about methodology. From what I understand, MacArthur's methods (to name one critic whom you so evidently despise) are quite modern, but his message is not. Generally speaking, it is the same message that has beenpreached by the true church for the last 2,000 years. Is Warren's?”
I never metioned MacAuthur. You connected him. Yes, Warren’s message is the same. However, you are not qualified to make such assertions because by your own admission, you are not familiar with his message.
“Where is hell in his message? It was certianly prominent in Christ's. The deemphasis on hell and sin in Warren's message accounts as much for his results than do the use of rock or jazz music, etc. A better and more biblical method is that employed for decades by evangelist Ray Comfort(http://www.livingwaters.com), best known for the book and sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret", and a charismatic too, if you must know. “
Hell is in Warren’s message. He wouldn’t be a good Southern Baptist if it wasn’t and, I’m happy to say, the SBC wouldn’t have him if he did not preach it. Your tendency to talk about things that you know nothing about is pretty characteristic of everything you’ve said here. I think the best advice I can give you is to read Warren’s books.
“Should evangelistic methods be examined in light of a changing culturalsituation from modernism to post-modernism? No doubt about it. But this should be done with an eye perhaps to how the message is presented and at times by not using jargon, church-speak, etc, and not by a change in the essence of the message itself. I would submit that so-called seeker-sensitive ministries are on the wrong track, ceding too much to the world and the spirit of the age and offering a watered-down truth, if they offer it at all. I hope I have it wrong, that I have missed something or misunderstood somewhere but if you say that the methods employed by the ministries you tout (namely Warren's and Hybels') that are chiefly characterized by a deemphasis on sin and hell and that are very short on doctrine are what is necessary to reach postmoderns, and that anyone who protests against this "kills God" and "is not doing it" unless they hop on the bandwagon then I do not hesitate to say that this is a doctrine of demons. “
And I thought it was the doctrine of Acts 2.
Before I lose it, especially because you quoted Scripture at me, I will stop. Chris, if you want to talk about this more, you may email me privately, but please read both of Warren’s books and listen to at least one sermon of Warren’s before you do. I prefer to debate with a much more prepared person.
Dave M.
Is God Dead?
1st Revision
By
Dave McDowell
“’Whither is God?’ he cried, ‘I shall tell you where. We have killed him—you and I…God is dead…And we have killed him’” Nietzsche said it. And I must admit, to a certain extent, I agree. “God is not dead,” you say. “He is alive and well.” Well, where is he? You certainly do not find his influence in the Roman Catholic Church these days, a church that has been eaten up and spit out by a clergy sex scandal. Before you start thumping your chest in pride because you are a Protestant, keep in mind that the Episcopal Church appointed it’s first openly gay bishop last year. Mainline Protestant denominations saw a dramatic drop in membership and attendance in the 1990’s This does not include the mammoth Southern Baptist Convention, although the pace of it’s growth did fall dramatically. It seems that the larger denominations have lost their influence in the wake of relativistic teaching and the dichotomy of their stances. The church seems to be at best split in two, at worst, as Nietzsche described God…dead.
However, the same article that trumpeted Mainline Protestantism’s apparent slow death also noted that some denominations did grow. Believe it or not, even in the wake of disaster, the Catholic Church was among them as well as the heretical Mormon church and the Assemblies of God, my old stomping grounds. The study says, “Scholars say the data also show the Pentecostal movement has established itself within mainstream Christianity, attracting middle-class churchgoers with so-called ‘manifestations of the Holy Spirit’ such as speaking in tongues.” It seems that people seeking the truth of Christianity are drawn by experience rather than liturgy. To this denomination, and others patterned after it, God is not dead…and they seem to offer strong arguments for it, namely, for them, the church experience has become relevant.
So is God really dead? Or has it just lost its relevance? If God is dead, I agree with Neitzsche: we have killed him. Not in the literal sense, but through our rigidness and closed minds. We climb up on our high horses and look upon the unchosen world with disdain and we organize our churches to keep out the seeker of truth and to promote our version of social Christianity. Well guess what? That world, which we thought stupid for not seeing the truth, has turned up it’s nose to our hypocrisy and have fled out the doors of churches to find their own significance elsewhere. The fastest growing religion in the United States is no longer Christianity, but Islam. It seems they have offered to people a greater sense of significance, particularly among the black community, where they are also the fastest growing religion. My theory is that the reason people have retreated from Christianity and moved to other religions is that Christianity has lost its relevance in the United States.
However, although Islam carries the honor of being the fastest growing religion in the country and the fastest growing religion among the black community, it does not have the honor of having the fastest growing community of believers. That honor belongs to Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, California. Surprisingly, Saddleback is a Southern Baptist Church, although you would never know that by their style and their growth. Their pastor is Rick Warren, who is most famous for his two “purpose-driven” books. The first book, The Purpose Driven Church came out in 1995 and has sold more than one million copies in twenty different languages. Supporters of the book include W. A. Criswell (who wrote the foreword), Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, Adrian Rogers, and Jack Hayford. But Warren is known more for his recent book The Purpose Driven Life that has sold more than five million copies and has spent numerous weeks on top of the New York Times Best Seller List. One website describes Warren as having “bad reputation in conservative circles.” This seems to be the understatement of the year. Fundamentalists seem to abhor him claiming, “he misuses the Bible, stretching the meaning of passages or even giving passages a meaning that is foreign to them.”
Warren’s beliefs about church structure seemed to be summed up well in a book review posted online:
“The thesis of The Purpose Driven Church is that when churches think first about their health, growth is sure to follow. "If your church is healthy," writes Rick Warren, "growth will occur naturally. Healthy, consistent growth is the result of balancing the five biblical purposes of the church." These five purposes are to "Love the Lord with all your heart," "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Go and make disciples," "[Baptize] them," and "[Teach] them to obey." And those purposes can only be accomplished, argues Warren, when church leaders stop thinking about church-building programs and shift their focus to a "people-building process" involving fellowship, discipleship, worship, and evangelism. Warren, the founder of the fastest-growing Baptist church in American history, has taught seminars to thousands of pastors from all over the world, many of whom have successfully implemented his techniques.”
Unfortunately, Warren has his share of critics. One website says:
“Warren mocks churches which ‘seem to think that the 1950s was the golden age, and they are determined to preserve that era in their church’ (p. 55). He later makes it clear what he means by this. He encourages young pastors to leave behind that old-fashioned church music in favor of jazz or rock or whatever turns your people on! He encourages churches to imitate the culture and "dress down" for church…He is desperately trying to be relevant, and in the process has lost all sense of being ‘set apart.’ Walking into church with food and drink, dressed down as if at the mall, and hearing rock & jazz music may be relevant, but it is NOT much different from the world.
Interestingly though, the same website elsewhere says, “Rick Warren's church (and others like it) have attracted thousands. His methods do work. He says that the reason for the spectacular growth has been his emphasis on creating a ‘purpose driven church.’” However, the author contributes Warren’s success to pragmatism.
Another critic is Nathan Busenitz of Shepherd’s Fellowship “an association of churches rallying around the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, the importance of expository preaching, and the centrality of a biblical philosophy of ministry.” He sums up the basic fundamentalist view in his final assessment: “While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.” My favorite one, I believe is this gross straw man representation of Warren’s beliefs: “The Purpose-Driven Church is based on the (unbiblical) concept that we should aim to make sinners feel comfortable at church.”
Whether or not you agree with Warren’s methodology, you cannot deny the numerical success of Saddleback. As of the time of this writing, it is fast approaching 20,000 in attendance. According to Warren, the majority of the membership of his church is not transfer growth, as in members coming from another church, but rather conversion growth of previous unbelievers. If the conversions are genuine, and I believe they are, this is one of the most successful churches in the history of the world. As a matter of fact, the only way you can attack Warren is by denying that these conversions are genuine. That usually is the basic ploy of fundamentalists and others who attack his methodology.
One of most interesting things to note is that the same people who criticize Warren’s methodology are the same people who will not offer an alternative. They insist on using the same tired out methods that they have been using for over one hundred years even though it is very clear that this country has moved from a modern context to a postmodern one. These are the same people who slink in the shadows because their priest has become a child-molester. These are the same people who sit in the pew of the Episcopal Church and listen to a gay heretic blaspheme the Word of God. These are the same people who sit in a church pew like the frozen chosen and do not get out and do the work of the ministry.
Is God dead? To the people who are content to sit on a pew week after week and criticize one of the most successful evangelists in the history of the United States, God is dead. He is dead because they have killed Him. At least their God is dead. My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels, just to name a few, who do not criticize obvious works of God and who continue to engage this world with the real gospel, the one of love and not of criticism and hate. These men infect their individual churches with the fire of the love of God and, as a result, wonder of wonders, they grow!
God, let us not grow weary in well doing! Let us spur on the men of You who in their faithfulness to continue to spread your love and let us shun those of a critical spirit who seek to tear down the workings of Your Spirit and to kill God with their futile ramblings. Let us remind those who would criticize Your move in the words of my friend Steve Sparks, a youth pastor in Jackson, Michigan: “I like the way he does it better than the way you don’t do it.”
Friedrich Nietsche, “The Gay Science,” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. And trans. W. Kauffman (New York Viking, 1954), p. 95.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N40/long-5.40w.html
Ibid
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030904-stinger02.htm
http://www.westchasechurch.org/missions.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/pdc.htm
Ibid
http://www.challies.com/archives/000037.html
Ibid
Ibid
http://flashmarket.com/a/0310201063/Purpose_Driven%C2%AE_Church_The.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Letter/v8n2.htm
Ibid
http://www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/
http://www.biblebb.com/files/pdc.htm
http://www.christianity-books.com/PurposeDriven_Church_The_0310201063.html
Dave,
Since your posting was a response to mine, the clear inference is that me and those like myself who simply desire to know God and to please him have "killed him" since I wish to, as the Bible commands, test the spirits and be a Berean. This is a most reckless and intemperate charge, not to mention uncharitable, to put it charitably as I can. My guess is that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the ministry of Nathan Busenitz or the
ministry of any of the other Warren critics you quoted, but instead denounce them in much the same manner as you accuse Warren's critics of denouncing him. They offered reasoned critiques (whether the criticism itself is right or not), sadly you do not.
I have no desire to be contentious or go "heresy hunting" but I certainly think comparing ministries with the scriptural model can be helpful from time to time (but not very often, it really can be an unhealthy and unprofitable pursuit), just as we should examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith, while avoiding a morbid introspection. The thread to which I responded was by far the most popular one since I've been on here and
since Dr. Gary seemed puzzled as to what all the fuss was about, I figured I would weigh in with my two cents. To say that is killing God is patently absurd. There are many who have very fruitful ministries who have offered criticism of Warren and others. And regarding Islam, many seeker sensitive types are very friendly toward it (usually characterizing it as a religion of peace) and generally shy away from the exclusive claims of the gospel, since they are fundamentally man-centered (can a self-consciously
seeker-sensitive ministry be otherwise?) Franklin Graham I suppose would be an exception re: Islam although I wouldn't really include him within their camp since he is an evangelist and not a pastor. His comments in the wake of 9/11 were certainly a pleasant surprise to me and are apparently born out of his experiences in his humanitarian work in the Sudan.
You quote some of Warren's critics, and instead of engaging them on the merits, you simply state they are wrong, that you believe most of Warren's converts are genuine (offering no evidence whatsoever and not even a link or anything pertaining to Warren's gospel, the message to which they responded) and offer only ad hominem attacks against his critics. The Busenitz quote you include seems to be a reasonable criticism (I note
that he did not call Warren a heretic or false teacher or any other perjorative term), but your only response is to call him a fundamentalist, as if that perjorative term is enough to rest your case upon. Go back and read my post again, particularly the first paragraph. If this is the message that Warren preaches consistently, then God bless him. Again, I confessed in that post that I was not as familiar with his ministry as I am with Schuller's and others, and did say that it seemed to be more biblically oriented and maybe more exclusive (in the sense that it consistently preaches that Jesus is the only way to God, which is my sense of it) than Schuller, Hybels et al. even though Schuller was a mentor to and is a strong influence upon Warren. (Schuller has no problem with Mormons, Muslims, etc in heaven and said he would not be troubled if his grandchildren became Muslims.) In fact I did not directly criticize Warren at all, since I am generally unfamiliar with him. (I would add that he is unique indeed if most of his membership is made up of "new converts" or the unchurched because "seeker-sensitive" methods generally result in transfer growth instead). But the clear inference from your post is that I have "killed God" (I realize it is an old article, but it was posted in
response to my post).
This list is entitled Reformed-Charismatic, but the "killing God" charge is
something I would expect to hear from a radical charismatic, anti-reformed writer like William D'Arteaga (or perhaps Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch), who embraces charismatic phenomena in voodoo, various cults, etc as being of the Holy Spirit, saying that Reformed people and Fundamentalists (characterising them all as Pharisees) quench the Spirit so He must manifest himself through cults instead. And your enthusiasm for Warren has more in common with Charles Finney and his belief that revival could come at a time of his choosing thorough the application of particular methods than it does with any stream of Reformed thought or indeed the truth that God is sovereign in salvation, as in all else.
You write: "My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels." I would note that all of these men are Arminian (nothing wrong with that, btw and I think Rogers is a good preacher despite his recent attacks upon Calvinism and his stated determination to expel it from the SBC). Are there no Reformed or
Calvinist leaders in whom your "God is alive and well and continues to move and work?" John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and John Piper are just a few that I would commend to you. I suppose MacArthur and Sproul wouldn't qualify since they are cessationist and tend to be critical at times of charismatic and seeker-sensitive ministries. I would note that MacArthur's organization is the largest Protestant organization in LA county--so
much for "frozen chosen", and I would doubt that his worship service much resembles his father's (who was also a pastor) of the '50's either, he uses modern music, etc. Sproul has probably done more than anyone else in the last 25 years to popularize Reformed doctrine. Well then, I guess Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, B.B. Warfield, J. Grescham Machen, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones (he moved to an essentially cessationist position after witnessing the excesses of the charismatic movement in the '60's) just to name a few, wouldn't qualify either since they also didn't hesitate to denounce false teaching (and in some cases, questionable methods employed by otherwise sound teachers, as in Lloyd-Jones' refusal to endorseGraham because of his cooperation with apostate liberals and Roman Catholics and thus muddying his message and violating the biblical injunction to be equally yoked) when they saw it....
Busenitz wrote: "While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.”
Would you seriously have us believe that Warren's book and ministry better expounds "foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical" than say, John Piper's (not a cessationist btw, but close to his friend Wayne Grudem's teachings in that regard) R.C. Sproul's, John MacArthur's or Adrian Rogers for that matter?
Dave, at times, I have profited from what you've written on this list. Now please respond with facts and show us where Busenitz (and I) err instead of giving us a half-cocked diatribe and more hominem attacks. If I'm not mistaken, Busenitz is affiliated with John MacArthur's ministry. I'm sure you would have disagreements with his ministry, as do I (namely, dispensational eschatology, moderate use of alcohol and perhaps, his
cessationism) but that doesn't change the fact that Busenitz's observations would seem to be valid, and that this ministry you cited has in fact been one of the most fruitful evangelical ministries in this country over the last 30 years, despite your dogmatic statement that it and others have "killed God" and have not and are not bearing fruit, and are "not doing it". You rail against Warren's critics because he seems to have had
visible results for the Lord. And I don't think anyone would assert that some good has not been done there and that there have not been many genuine conversions. But at best I'd say that Warren's books are milk for babes in Christ. And Christians really should lose their milk-teeth at some point, shouldn't they? (I think Paul had something to say on that point :) ) You talk about methodology. From what I understand, MacArthur's methods to name one critic whom you so evidently despise) are quite modern, but his
message is not. Generally speaking, it is the same message that has been preached by the true church for the last 2,000 years. Is Warren's? Where is hell in his message? It was certianly prominent in Christ's. The deemphasis on hell and sin in Warren's message accounts as much for his results than do the use of rock or jazz music, etc. A better and more biblical method is that employed for decades by evangelist Ray Comfort(http://www.livingwaters.com), best known for the book and sermon "Hell's
Best Kept Secret", and a charismatic too, if you must know.
Should evangelistic methods be examined in light of a changing cultural situation from modernism to post-modernism? No doubt about it. But this should be done with an eye perhaps to how the message is presented and at times by not using jargon, church-speak, etc, and not by a change in the essence of the message itself. I would submit that so-called seeker-sensitive ministries are on the wrong track, ceding too much to the world and the spirit of the age and offering a watered-down truth, if they offer it at all. I hope I have it wrong, that I have missed something or misunderstood somewhere but if you say that the methods employed by the ministries you tout (namely Warren's and Hybels') that are chiefly characterized by a deemphasis on sin and hell and that are very short on
doctrine are what is necessary to reach postmoderns, and that anyone who protests against this "kills God" and "is not doing it" unless they hop on the bandwagon then I do not hesitate to say that this is a doctrine of demons.
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who
shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having
itching ears;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the
creation of God;
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I
will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and
have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and
miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou
mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and
that
the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with
eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous
therefore,
and repent.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my
voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the
churches.
Here's my response:
“Since your posting was a response to mine, the clear inference is that me and those like myself who simply desire to know God and to please him have "killed him" since I wish to, as the Bible commands, test the spirits and be a Berean. This is a most reckless and intemperate charge, not tomention uncharitable, to put it charitably as I can.”
Chris, this was an essay that I wrote about six or so months ago after I began to attend a “seeker-sensitive” church and was moderately criticized by some of my friends and family. It was in no way directed at you personally, but I do sense that I hit a nerve. I consider myself a “Berean” too and in no way meant to discourage Bible study. My point was that we have killed God’s effectiveness by shunning the move of the Spirit.
“My guess is that you have no familiarity whatsoever with the ministry of Nathan Busenitz or the ministry of any of the other Warren critics you quoted, but instead denounce them in much the same manner as you accuse Warren's critics of denouncing him. They offered reasoned critiques (whether the criticismitself is right or not), sadly you do not.”
You are right when you say that I am not familiar with Nathan Busentiz’s ministry. I am familiar with some of the others. Most of the research was done on the internet. I never denounced any ministry other than to point out that they are not doing as effective of a job as they could in a postmodern context.
“I have no desire to be contentious or go ‘heresy hunting’ but I certainly think comparing ministries with the scriptural model can be helpful from time to time (but not very often, it really can be an unhealthy and unprofitable pursuit), just as we should examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith, while avoiding a morbid introspection. The thread to which I responded was by far the most popular one since I've been on here and since Dr. Gary seemed puzzled as to what all the fuss was about, I figured Iwould weigh in with my two cents.”
I must confess that I sometimes do not read all the posts and simply scanned the email and also added my two cents using an essay that I wrote a few months back.
“As I said, To say that is killing God is patently absurd.”
Not so. What is absurd is when a good “Berean” writes off Warren because of his success. Most of the people that I quoted attacked Warren because they said that his church and teachings were not biblical. I offer that Warren’s church model is the most biblical one that I’ve seen.
“There are many who have very fruitful ministries who have offered criticism of Warren and others.”
Again, when I said that these ministries were “killing God,” I was using hyperbole to make a point.
“And regarding Islam, many seeker sensitive types are very friendly toward it (usually characterizing it as a religion of peace) and generally shy away from the exclusive claims of the gospel, since they are fundamentally man-centered (can a self-consciously seeker-sensitive ministry be otherwise?)”
You claim that I offer no proof for my claims and you commit the same fallacy with this remark. I will say that when it come to my own church, Metro South Church in Flat Rock, Michigan, www.metrosouth.com ) that it is untrue. You call “seeker-sensitive” church “man-centered.” You first need to clarify what you would mean by a God-centered church. If my church could be considered man-centered, it is only because Jesus “came to seek and to save that which was lost.” If that is man-centered, then we are guilty as charged.
“Franklin Graham I suppose would be an exception re: Islam although I wouldn't really include him within their camp since he is an evangelist and not a pastor. His comments in the wake of 9/11 were certainly a pleasant surprise to me and are apparently born out of his experiences in his humanitarian work in the Sudan.”
Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand.
“You quote some of Warren's critics, and instead of engaging them on the merits, you simply state they are wrong, that you believe most of Warren's converts are genuine (offering no evidence whatsoever and not even a link or anything pertaining to Warren's gospel, the message to which they responded) and offer only ad hominem attacks against his critics.“
Chris, how can I prove that Warren’s converts are legitimate? Only God knows the heart. If you can prove your converts are genuine, I’d like to hear how. My whole point was that Warren’s gospel is the legitimate gospel. He can defend himself. Read his book. One million others have. Are you one of them?
And how did I offer ad hominem attacks. I did not attack them. I barely attacked their ministry. I only said that they have effectively killed God (using a hyberbole) by not allowing the Spirit of God to move and by not changing the style of their services to reach more people.
“The Busenitz quote you include seems to be a reasonable criticism (I note thathe did not call Warren a heretic or false teacher or any other perjorative term), but your only response is to call him a fundamentalist, as if that perjorative term is enough to rest your case upon.”
Of course it was reasonable. And I never called Busenitz a heretic. Are you inferring that I did? As far as the term fundamentalist is concerned, I would not consider myself a fundamentalist even though I would believe essentially the same things. That word has become a negative word, even in Christian circles. The people that still call themselves “fundamentalists” are usually the people that lob these ludicrous arguments against Warren.
“Go back and read my post again, particularly the first paragraph. If this is the message that Warren preaches consistently, then God bless him.”
Well, I’ve already stated that I did not read the post and was merely adding my two cents. By the way, God has blessed Rick Warren.
“Again, I confessed in that post that I was not as familiar with his ministry as I am with Schuller's and others, and did say that it seemed to be more biblically-oriented and maybe more exclusive (in the sense that it consistently preaches that Jesus is the only way to God, which is my sense of it) than Schuller, Hybels et al. even though Schuller was a mentor to and is a strong influence upon Warren. (Schuller has no problem with Mormons, Muslims, etc in heaven and said he would not be troubled if his grandchildren became Muslims.) In fact I did not directly criticize Warren at all, since I am generally unfamiliar with him. (I would add that he is unique indeed if most of his membership is made up of "new converts" or the unchurched because "seeker-sensitive" methods generally result in transfergrowth instead). But the clear inference from your post is that I have "killed God" (I realize it is an old article, but it was posted in response to my post). “
Chris, do not criticize my essay about Warren when, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with his ministry. Please, be a good “Berean” (something you call yourself) and do your homework before being critical. I’ve spent years doing mine and, as a Gen-X person, have every right to be critical of modern-day American Christian religiosity that does not seem to have a purpose and is so disorganized and divided that it is not effective. If you want to make the argument that modern-day American Christianity is being effective, it better be convincing.
“This list is entitled Reformed-Charismatic, but the "killing God" charge issomething I would expect to hear from a radical charismatic, anti-reformedwriter like William D'Arteaga (or perhaps Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch), who embraces charismatic phenomena in voodoo, various cults, etc as being ofthe Holy Spirit, saying that Reformed people and Fundamentalists (characterising them all as Pharisees) quench the Spirit so He must manifest himself through cults instead.”
Hyperbole, Chris. Hyperbole.
“And your enthusiasm for Warren has more in common with Charles Finney and his belief that revival could come at a time of his choosing thorough the application of particular methods than it does with any stream of Reformed thought or indeed the truth that God is sovereign in salvation, as in all else.”
What? I never said that following Warren’s method would lead to a revival. I simply argued that his method is the most effective and biblical. Talk about your red herrings!
“You write: ‘My God is alive and well and continues to move and work in the lives of men like Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, Jack Hayford and Bill Hybels.’ I would note that all of these men are Arminian (nothing wrong with that, btw and I think Rogers isa good preacher despite his recent attacks upon Calvinism and his stated determination to expel it from the SBC). “
If you will notice, these are all men that came out in support of Warren’s book and ministry. That is why I used them.
“Are there no Reformed or Calvinist leaders in whom your "God is alive and well and continues to move and work?" John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and John Piper are just a few thatI would commend to you. I suppose MacArthur and Sproul wouldn't qualify since they are cessationist and tend to be critical at times of charismatic and seeker-sensitive ministries. I would note that MacArthur's organization is the largest Protestant organization in LA county--so muchfor "frozen chosen", and I would doubt that his worship service muchresembles his father's (who was also a pastor) of the '50's either, he uses modern music, etc. Sproul has probably done more than anyone else in the last 25 years to popularize Reformed doctrine. Well then, I guess Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, B.B. Warfield, J. Grescham Machen, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones (he moved to an essentially cessationist position after witnessing the excesses of the charismatic movement in the '60's) just to name a few, wouldn't qualify either since they also didn't hesitate to denounce false teaching (and in some cases, questionable methods employed by otherwise sound teachers, as in Lloyd-Jones' refusal to endorseGraham because of his cooperation with apostate liberals and RomanCatholics and thus muddying his message and violating the biblical injunction to be equally yoked) when they saw it.... “
You asked, “Are there no Reformed or Calvinist leaders in whom your ‘God is alive and well and continues to move and work?’” This is another fallacy. None of the people that you mentioned have come out in support of Warren’s ministry and that was what I was dealing with.
“Busenitz wrote: ‘While Warren’s book does offer some practical tips for making a church larger, it fails to expound the foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical. Because it overemphasizes the felt needs of unbelievers and de-emphasizes the priority of clear biblical teaching, The Purpose-Driven Church seems to be driven by the wrong purpose—namely, a man-centered desire for acceptance and influence rather than a God-centered affinity for truth.’ Would you seriously have us believe that Warren's book and ministry better expounds "foundational theological truths that make a church more biblical"than say, John Piper's (not a cessationist btw, but close to his friend Wayne Grudem's teachings in that regard) R.C. Sproul's, John MacArthur's or Adrian Rogers for that matter?”
It is true that Busenitz’s criticisms of Warren are theological. What I think he failed to see was that Warren’s book is much more about church organization and his philosophy of church ministry than theology. Maybe to you the two go hand in hand, but to me, they do not. In my humble opinion, Busenitz did the same thing you accused me of doing: not dealing with the arguments. Chris, while you may be able to successfully argue that Warren is not as good as a biblical exogete, if that was enough to make a church unbiblical then we would all have unbiblical churches.
“Dave, at times, I have profited from what you've written on this list. Now please respond with facts and show us where Busenitz (and I) err instead of giving us a half-cocked diatribe and more hominem attacks.”
Well, you took my “God is dead” literary device way too literally. And, as I mentioned, Busenitz approached Warren from the wrong point of view.
“If I'm not mistaken, Busenitz is affiliated with John MacArthur's ministry. I'm sure you would have disagreements with his ministry, as do I (namely,dispensational eschatology, moderate use of alcohol and perhaps, his cessationism) but that doesn't change the fact that Busenitz's observations would seem to be valid, and that this ministry you cited has in fact been one of the most fruitful evangelical ministries in this country over thelast 30 years, despite your dogmatic statement that it and others have "killed God" and have not and are not bearing fruit, and are "not doing it". You rail against Warren's critics because he seems to have had visible results for the Lord. And I don't think anyone would assert that some good has not been done there and that there have not been many genuine conversions.”
Well, Chris, I’ve never seen a tree have invisible fruits. Now before you go mischaracterizing me again, I am not saying that any of the men you listed above are not great men who do great works for the Lord and that there have been some visible fruit in their ministries. I’m only arguing that Warren, at least in church organization, has done it better.
“But at best I'd say that Warren's books are milk for babes in Christ. And Christians really should lose their milk-teeth at some point, shouldn't they? (I think Paul had something to say on that point :) )”
You’ve never read Warren’s book, have you? I would bet you’ve never heard him preach. It’s real easy. Just go to his website. His preaching is anything but milk.
“You talk about methodology. From what I understand, MacArthur's methods (to name one critic whom you so evidently despise) are quite modern, but his message is not. Generally speaking, it is the same message that has beenpreached by the true church for the last 2,000 years. Is Warren's?”
I never metioned MacAuthur. You connected him. Yes, Warren’s message is the same. However, you are not qualified to make such assertions because by your own admission, you are not familiar with his message.
“Where is hell in his message? It was certianly prominent in Christ's. The deemphasis on hell and sin in Warren's message accounts as much for his results than do the use of rock or jazz music, etc. A better and more biblical method is that employed for decades by evangelist Ray Comfort(http://www.livingwaters.com), best known for the book and sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret", and a charismatic too, if you must know. “
Hell is in Warren’s message. He wouldn’t be a good Southern Baptist if it wasn’t and, I’m happy to say, the SBC wouldn’t have him if he did not preach it. Your tendency to talk about things that you know nothing about is pretty characteristic of everything you’ve said here. I think the best advice I can give you is to read Warren’s books.
“Should evangelistic methods be examined in light of a changing culturalsituation from modernism to post-modernism? No doubt about it. But this should be done with an eye perhaps to how the message is presented and at times by not using jargon, church-speak, etc, and not by a change in the essence of the message itself. I would submit that so-called seeker-sensitive ministries are on the wrong track, ceding too much to the world and the spirit of the age and offering a watered-down truth, if they offer it at all. I hope I have it wrong, that I have missed something or misunderstood somewhere but if you say that the methods employed by the ministries you tout (namely Warren's and Hybels') that are chiefly characterized by a deemphasis on sin and hell and that are very short on doctrine are what is necessary to reach postmoderns, and that anyone who protests against this "kills God" and "is not doing it" unless they hop on the bandwagon then I do not hesitate to say that this is a doctrine of demons. “
And I thought it was the doctrine of Acts 2.
Before I lose it, especially because you quoted Scripture at me, I will stop. Chris, if you want to talk about this more, you may email me privately, but please read both of Warren’s books and listen to at least one sermon of Warren’s before you do. I prefer to debate with a much more prepared person.
Dave M.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
I’m not a sports fan. But I live near a city that loves it’s Red Wings and even it’s Lions. And last night, we were lovin’ the Pistons.
In the past few years, Detroit has got a bad reputation…and rightly so. At one time, Detroit had the highest murder rate per capita in the United States. But contrary to popular belief, Detroit is trying to become a city to respect again. Some may argue that they are trying to do it the wrong way, but Detroit is trying to build up it’s downtown, trying to again become a city of distinction rather than a city of desperation.
With that being said, the darlings of ABC and ESPN did not want to admit that it may be possible for their L.A. Lakers to lose to who? The Pistons? Nah. The Pistons can’t beat the Lakers. I mean, they’re from Detroit, right? Well, Shaq was shut down, Kobe was counted out, and the Mailman did not deliver. By the way, I thought there was a mandatory retirement age for postal workers.
But you cannot count Detroit’s win by merely saying that the Lakers did not play well. The Lakers did play five games of horrible sub-Lakers basketball. But Detroit brought it, too and now America has learned to fear the ‘fro. Underdogs do not win series 4 games to 1. Champions do.
The Pistons also managed to bring together a city that has had it’s share of tough times. Indeed, the city was unified by the simple phrase, “Go Pistons.” For at least a few days, there were some things in Detroit that were forgotten. But one of them was not the spirit of Detroit. It lives on. And it’s much more than a statue near Hart Plaza. It lives inside every person that lives and works in Detroit. Guys, from a guy who is not normally a sports fan, but that is now a Pistons fan, thanks for reminding me about the great city of Detroit.
And as far as next season goes…
GO PISTONS!!
In the past few years, Detroit has got a bad reputation…and rightly so. At one time, Detroit had the highest murder rate per capita in the United States. But contrary to popular belief, Detroit is trying to become a city to respect again. Some may argue that they are trying to do it the wrong way, but Detroit is trying to build up it’s downtown, trying to again become a city of distinction rather than a city of desperation.
With that being said, the darlings of ABC and ESPN did not want to admit that it may be possible for their L.A. Lakers to lose to who? The Pistons? Nah. The Pistons can’t beat the Lakers. I mean, they’re from Detroit, right? Well, Shaq was shut down, Kobe was counted out, and the Mailman did not deliver. By the way, I thought there was a mandatory retirement age for postal workers.
But you cannot count Detroit’s win by merely saying that the Lakers did not play well. The Lakers did play five games of horrible sub-Lakers basketball. But Detroit brought it, too and now America has learned to fear the ‘fro. Underdogs do not win series 4 games to 1. Champions do.
The Pistons also managed to bring together a city that has had it’s share of tough times. Indeed, the city was unified by the simple phrase, “Go Pistons.” For at least a few days, there were some things in Detroit that were forgotten. But one of them was not the spirit of Detroit. It lives on. And it’s much more than a statue near Hart Plaza. It lives inside every person that lives and works in Detroit. Guys, from a guy who is not normally a sports fan, but that is now a Pistons fan, thanks for reminding me about the great city of Detroit.
And as far as next season goes…
GO PISTONS!!
I gotta represent!!
World Sports - AFP
Detroit Pistons beat Lakers to capture third NBA title
47 minutes ago
AUBURN HILLS, United States (AFP) - Forget Hockeytown, Detroit now belongs to basketball's Pistons.
Richard Hamilton scored 21 points and Ben Wallace had 18 and grabbed 22 rebounds as Detroit overpowered the Los Angeles Lakers (news) 100-87 on Tuesday to capture their third National Basketball Association title.
The Pistons closed out the heavily-favoured Lakers in five games to register one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history.
"We are sitting on the top of the world," Rasheed Wallace said. "It is a band of guys. When you have veterans who are hungry and are willing to sacrifice to win you don't need to be a leader because everyone knows what they have to do."
Chauncey Billups had 14 points and six assists and was named the most valuable player of the finals.
"We never stopped trying, and we believed in ourselves," Billups said. "We played team basketball and we knew that would overcome everything."
Detroit won its first title since claiming back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990.
Once again the Pistons used a balanced scoring attack and stifling defence to beat the Lakers. Tayshaun Prince had 17 points and 10 rebounds before a frenzied crowd of 22,076 at The Palace arena.
"We just kept fighting, we kept fighting," said Prince, who did a superb job of shutting down Lakers star Kobe Bryant. "I am so happy right now, and it is all inside. I can't explain how I feel."
Rasheed Wallace, who came to Detroit in a trade four months ago, scored 11 points as all five Piston starters finished in double figures.
"I just added a little bit of defence," Rasheed Wallace said. "They were already a great team. I take pleasure in coming here and it has worked out for the best.
Bryant led the Lakers with 24 points. Shaquille O'Neal got into foul trouble early and finished with 20 points.
The Lakers were trying to become the first team to come back from a 3-1 deficit in the finals.
Instead of winning their fourth title in five years the Lakers are now looking at a major overhaul in the off-season.
Lakers coach Phil Jackson said after the game there was a "slim" chance he would be back next season with the Lakers.
"Right now I would say it's a pretty slim chance that I will be back coaching next year," Jackson said, who has won nine NBA titles with Los Angeles and Chicago.
Derek Fisher, who won three titles with the Lakers between 2000-2002, said there are mixed emotions in the locker room because some players will be moving on.
"When you leave the dressing room you never know if you are going to see those guys again," Fisher said. "We couldn't get it done."
The Pistons took a 23-point lead into the final quarter and became the first team to win all three home games in the middle of a 2-3-2 series.
"The way we did it against a quality coach and a quality team, it feels pretty special," said Pistons coach Larry Brown, who finally captured the title with his seventh NBA team.
Detroit also became the first Eastern Conference team to win the title since 1998, when the Chicago Bulls (news) captured their sixth championship in eight years under current Lakers coach Phil Jackson.
Aging star Karl Malone did not dress for the Lakers for the first time in the series. Malone, nursing an injured knee, sat on the end of the bench in street clothes and, after going through so much, his season ended without a title.
Slava Medvedenko started in place of Malone and scored a eight points in the first quarter, finishing with 10.
O'Neal got into foul trouble early by picking up his third in the second quarter. With O'Neal out the Pistons opened up their lead to 55-45 at the half.
"They flat out beat us to everything," O'Neal said. They played with great intensity. They capitalized off our turnovers and they just played harder than we did."
World Sports - AFP
Detroit Pistons beat Lakers to capture third NBA title
47 minutes ago
AUBURN HILLS, United States (AFP) - Forget Hockeytown, Detroit now belongs to basketball's Pistons.
Richard Hamilton scored 21 points and Ben Wallace had 18 and grabbed 22 rebounds as Detroit overpowered the Los Angeles Lakers (news) 100-87 on Tuesday to capture their third National Basketball Association title.
The Pistons closed out the heavily-favoured Lakers in five games to register one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history.
"We are sitting on the top of the world," Rasheed Wallace said. "It is a band of guys. When you have veterans who are hungry and are willing to sacrifice to win you don't need to be a leader because everyone knows what they have to do."
Chauncey Billups had 14 points and six assists and was named the most valuable player of the finals.
"We never stopped trying, and we believed in ourselves," Billups said. "We played team basketball and we knew that would overcome everything."
Detroit won its first title since claiming back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990.
Once again the Pistons used a balanced scoring attack and stifling defence to beat the Lakers. Tayshaun Prince had 17 points and 10 rebounds before a frenzied crowd of 22,076 at The Palace arena.
"We just kept fighting, we kept fighting," said Prince, who did a superb job of shutting down Lakers star Kobe Bryant. "I am so happy right now, and it is all inside. I can't explain how I feel."
Rasheed Wallace, who came to Detroit in a trade four months ago, scored 11 points as all five Piston starters finished in double figures.
"I just added a little bit of defence," Rasheed Wallace said. "They were already a great team. I take pleasure in coming here and it has worked out for the best.
Bryant led the Lakers with 24 points. Shaquille O'Neal got into foul trouble early and finished with 20 points.
The Lakers were trying to become the first team to come back from a 3-1 deficit in the finals.
Instead of winning their fourth title in five years the Lakers are now looking at a major overhaul in the off-season.
Lakers coach Phil Jackson said after the game there was a "slim" chance he would be back next season with the Lakers.
"Right now I would say it's a pretty slim chance that I will be back coaching next year," Jackson said, who has won nine NBA titles with Los Angeles and Chicago.
Derek Fisher, who won three titles with the Lakers between 2000-2002, said there are mixed emotions in the locker room because some players will be moving on.
"When you leave the dressing room you never know if you are going to see those guys again," Fisher said. "We couldn't get it done."
The Pistons took a 23-point lead into the final quarter and became the first team to win all three home games in the middle of a 2-3-2 series.
"The way we did it against a quality coach and a quality team, it feels pretty special," said Pistons coach Larry Brown, who finally captured the title with his seventh NBA team.
Detroit also became the first Eastern Conference team to win the title since 1998, when the Chicago Bulls (news) captured their sixth championship in eight years under current Lakers coach Phil Jackson.
Aging star Karl Malone did not dress for the Lakers for the first time in the series. Malone, nursing an injured knee, sat on the end of the bench in street clothes and, after going through so much, his season ended without a title.
Slava Medvedenko started in place of Malone and scored a eight points in the first quarter, finishing with 10.
O'Neal got into foul trouble early by picking up his third in the second quarter. With O'Neal out the Pistons opened up their lead to 55-45 at the half.
"They flat out beat us to everything," O'Neal said. They played with great intensity. They capitalized off our turnovers and they just played harder than we did."
This is just fascinating!!
Arkansas Woman Recognized as Confederate Widow
UPDATED - Tuesday June 15, 2004 3:52pm
Little Rock (AP) - The United Daughters of the Confederacy is
recognizing Maudi Celia Hopkins of Lexa as a surviving widow of a
Civil War soldier.
News reports that the last Civil War widow had died last month
prompted relatives to verify her claims, kept private for decades and
the Daughters of the Confederacy say there may be others like Hopkins
who are still alive.
Hopkins married 86-year-old William Cantrell in 1934, after he hired
the 19-year-old to clean his house. Now 89-years-old, Hopkins says
she never talked about the marriage much for fear it would become a
topic of gossip.
Last month, Alberta Martin of Elba, Alabama, died at age 97. News
reports described her as the last widow of a Civil War veteran. But
Confederate historians have proved Hopkins claims' through
researching old records.
Hopkins told the Associated Press she married Cantrell, who collected
a Civil War pension from the state of Arkansas, to escape poverty.
Arkansas Woman Recognized as Confederate Widow
UPDATED - Tuesday June 15, 2004 3:52pm
Little Rock (AP) - The United Daughters of the Confederacy is
recognizing Maudi Celia Hopkins of Lexa as a surviving widow of a
Civil War soldier.
News reports that the last Civil War widow had died last month
prompted relatives to verify her claims, kept private for decades and
the Daughters of the Confederacy say there may be others like Hopkins
who are still alive.
Hopkins married 86-year-old William Cantrell in 1934, after he hired
the 19-year-old to clean his house. Now 89-years-old, Hopkins says
she never talked about the marriage much for fear it would become a
topic of gossip.
Last month, Alberta Martin of Elba, Alabama, died at age 97. News
reports described her as the last widow of a Civil War veteran. But
Confederate historians have proved Hopkins claims' through
researching old records.
Hopkins told the Associated Press she married Cantrell, who collected
a Civil War pension from the state of Arkansas, to escape poverty.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
A friend of mine wrote this...I think it's beautiful
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
I'm glad Ronald Reagan is finally dead. It isn't that I didn't like the man; I did. It's that I watched the ten year course of Alzheimer's disease on my wife's mother, and it is not a happy journey to the Celestial City.
My mother-in-law wasn't the first person whom I knew with Alzheimer's. Some years before, I had noticed bizarre personality changes in an older woman in my congregation. This should have been the time when she and her husband enjoyed their retirement together, but she turned it into a nightmare. First she began to misplace items and instead of facing the reality of a failing memory, she would accuse her husband of stealing. Then when she would find something she'd been looking for, she would accuse him of playing evil tricks on her. Things went from bad to worse. They were people of some means and owned a motor home. One day as they sat with friends at one of those luxury campgrounds, she told everybody that her husband was a sexual pervert, somebody they ought to watch out for. It was the last straw. "In sickness and health" didn't cover this, he thought, and he left her and moved to another state. She also got mad at the church and left, but sometime later I was able to visit her in the hospital and later attend her funeral -- it was done by another pastor in another church -- not the first time that somebody in whom I had invested years of pastoral care left in bitterness. I was never able to find out where her husband went.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much by her husband, then by my wife -- we moved her to Central Louisiana about fourteen months before she died, because my father-in-law simply could no longer tend to her by himself. For many months he would alternate his time staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed. She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms. We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day the gangrenous golf ball sized piece necrotic tissue simply fell off. And to our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
I'm not sure whom all she recognized. For a period of time, she thought my wife was her mother, but she eventually ceased pretty much to be able to talk at all. It was slow and painful for the family. We never left her alone for more than a couple of minutes. We always ate our evening meal in her bedroom, with the television going. I hate using television as background noise; if fact, I pretty much hate television. But my wife's father kept it on, and he only turned it off when he decided to go to sleep. When it was my turn to sit with her, so Sandy and her Dad could go into town and get a break, I would turn it off and read. But I would also think.
I thought about killing her.
I knew there was the little bottle with morphine, sitting by the rented hospital bed in which she lay. From being with dozens of sick people at death, I knew there would be no autopsy, because she would have died under the care of a physician. I knew I could get away with it. I didn't dislike her. In fact, I truly believe I loved her and briefly entertained the idea that it would be a loving act -- loving to her, loving to her husband, to my wife, to my wife's sister who would leave her teaching job and family and travel to Louisiana for ten day stretches during those five months.
Of course, I never really embraced that kind of thinking. Why? Because I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe that God has foreordained whatever comes to pass -- God, "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11.) -- God, who "is faithful," who "will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but when you are tempted," "will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Corinthians 10:13.) -- God, who has numbered the hairs of our heads and before whom not a sparrow falls outside his sovereign purpose. (Matthew 10:29-31.) Everything that I ever had read in Scripture reminded me that no one dies apart from the plan and purpose of God. Mrs. Price was still alive, held incommunicado in the tiny cell of Alzheimer's, because God's purpose for her life had not yet been fulfilled. It wasn't simply whatever mysterious thing God might be accomplishing in her; it was what he would do through her in the lives of others -- in my life, too.
There is a profound sense of the futility of life that comes over you as you tend for a dying loved one, months on end. I thought about Saint Paul's words in Romans 8:20, 21, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
I thought about Qoholeth's words, so broadly paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor:
"Don't let the excitement of being young cause you to forget about your Creator. Honor him in your youth before the evil years come -- when you'll no longer enjoy living. It will be too late then to try to remember him when the sun and light and moon and stars are dim to your old eyes, and there is no silver lining left among your clouds. For there will come a time when your limbs will tremble with age, your strong legs will become weak, and your teeth will be too few to do their work, and there will be blindness too. Then let your lips be tightly closed while eating when your teeth are gone! And you will waken at dawn with the first note of the birds; but you yourself will be deaf and tuneless, with quavering voice. You will be afraid of heights and of falling-- a white-haired, withered old man, dragging himself along: without sexual desire, standing at death's door, and nearing his everlasting home as the mourners go along the streets. Yes, remember your Creator now while you are young -- before the silver cord of life snaps and the gold bowl is broken; before the pitcher is broken at the fountain and the wheel is broken at the cistern; then the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
But then I remembered Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, "Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
That "wasting away," especially in a decade long battle of defeat with Alzheimer's is difficult, and Scott Peck, for all his errors, was right on when he penned:
'Life is difficult.
'This is a great truth, one of the greatest truths. It is a great truth because once we truly see this truth, we transcend it. Once we truly know that life is difficult -- once we truly understand and accept it -- then life is no longer difficult. Because once it is accepted, the fact that life is difficult no longer matters.
'Most do not fully see this truth that life is difficult. Instead they moan more or less incessantly, noisily or subtly, about the enormity of their problems, their burdens, and their difficulties as if life were generally easy, as if life should be easy. They voice their belief, noisily or subtly, that their difficulties represent a unique kind of affliction that should not be and that has somehow been especially visited upon them, or else upon their families, their tribe, their class, their nation, their race or even their species, and not upon others. I know about this moaning because I have done my share.
'Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them? Do we want to teach our children to solve them?
'Discipline is the basic set of tools we require to solve life's problems. Without discipline we can solve nothing. With only some discipline we can solve only some problems. With total discipline we can solve all problems.'
But contrary to Peck, we cannot solve every problem with discipline; the futility of life means that there is a barrier which brings inutility to human action, a place where we simply bow our forehead before God's majesty and worship the one whose purposes are beyond our comprehension.
Peck continues:
'What makes life difficult is that the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one. Problems, depending upon their nature, evoke in us frustration or grief or sadness or loneliness or guilt or regret or anger or fear or anxiety or anguish or despair. These are uncomfortable feelings, often very uncomfortable, often as painful as any kind of physical pain, sometimes equaling the very worst kind of physical pain. Indeed, it is because of the pain that events or conflicts engender in us that we call them problems. And since life poses an endless series of problems, life is always difficult and is full of pain as well as joy.
'Yet it is in this whole process of meeting and solving problems that life has its meaning. Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between success and failure. Problems call forth our courage and our wisdom; indeed, they create our courage and our wisdom. It is because of problems that we grow mentally and spiritually. When we desire to encourage the growth of the human spirit, we challenge and encourage the human capacity to solve problems, just as in school we deliberately set problems for our children to solve. It is through the pain of confronting and resolving problems that we learn. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those things that hurt, instruct." It is for this reason that wise people learn not to dread but actually to welcome problems and actually to welcome the pain of problems.
'Most of us are not so wise. Fearing the pain involved, almost all of us, to a greater or lesser degree, attempt to avoid problems. We procrastinate, hoping that they will go away. We ignore them, forget them, pretend they do not exist. We even take drugs to assist us in ignoring them, so that by deadening ourselves to the pain we can forget the problems that cause the pain. We skirt around problems rather than meet them head on. We attempt to get out of them rather than suffer through them.
'This tendency to avoid problems and the emotional suffering inherent in them is the primary basis of all human mental illness. Since most of us have this tendency to a greater or lesser degree, most of us are mentally ill to a greater or lesser degree, lacking complete mental health. Some of us will go to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid our problems and the suffering they cause, proceeding far afield from all that is clearly good and sensible in order to try to find an easy way out, building the most elaborate fantasies in which to live, sometimes to the total exclusion of reality. In the succinctly elegant words of Carl Jung, "Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering."' (M. Scott Peck, M.D. _The Road Less Traveled_, pp. 15-17.)
Life is difficult, and it is fleeting. In so many ways, so much of life for so many people is unbelievably sad, and for everybody, sooner or later, no matter how much of this world's goods they enjoy, there is an underlying grief and emptiness to life in this world. "Even in laughter the heart may ache, and joy may end in grief." (Proverbs 14:13.) I used to watch that funny man, Johnny Carson, and my wife and I would comment on the sadness in his eyes. Life is a place of toil and tribulation.
"'Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace for evermore;
Till with the vision glorious
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest."
("The Church's One Foundation," Samuel J. Stone and Samuel S. Wesley.)
Yet it is only in this sober realization that life is full of sadness, that we can discover the secret to happiness, not only in the world to come, but in the here and now, too. For Saint Peter encourages, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter 1:8.)
"All I once held dear, built my life upon
All this world reveres and wars to own
All I once thought gain, I have counted loss
Spent and worthless now, compared to this
"Now my heart's desire is to know you more
To be found in you, and known as yours
To possess by faith what I could not earn
All surpassing gift of righteousness
"Oh to know the power of your risen life
And to know you in your suffering
To become like you in your death my Lord
So with You to live
And never die
(Chorus:)
"Knowing you, Jesus, knowing you
There is no greater thing
You're my all, you're the best
You're my joy, my righteousness
And I love you, Lord."
("Knowing You," Graham Kendrick.)
What goes on in the sequestered soul silently waiting the summons to face the last enemy before the blessed embrace, where a nail-pierced hand wipes away every tear? God knows; I don't. But I the promise of Proverbs 4:18 is still true, "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Can a bed of numbed pain in that drifting consciousness of Alzheimer's be a trysting place with Jesus? When my own wife once lay for days in a coma, she remembers being called back from a beautiful place of peace with rolling hills of verdant grass and blooming flowers; it was full of people, beatific with holy mirth. Who knows? What we do know is that we have "a more sure word of prophecy," Holy Scripture. (2 Peter 1:19.) And that Word gives us a "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life."
"While I draw this fleeting breath,
When my eye-strings break in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee."
("Rock of Ages," Augustus M. Toplady.)
There is compelling evidence that both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Price hid themselves in Christ, the mighty Rock, so I am glad they are dead -- glad for their families, but more importantly glad for them -- for death is always gain for the believer. (Philippians 1:21.) It is the completion of our course and the final victory in the battle with sin; it is final rest and joy unspeakable. It is the open door to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in the Great Hall of the King of kings.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone." (The Larger Catechism, 70)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
http://www.rbvincent.com
http://www.grace-presbyterian.org
http://www.gcsla.org
http://www.rbvincent.com/reformedcharismatic.htm
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
I'm glad Ronald Reagan is finally dead. It isn't that I didn't like the man; I did. It's that I watched the ten year course of Alzheimer's disease on my wife's mother, and it is not a happy journey to the Celestial City.
My mother-in-law wasn't the first person whom I knew with Alzheimer's. Some years before, I had noticed bizarre personality changes in an older woman in my congregation. This should have been the time when she and her husband enjoyed their retirement together, but she turned it into a nightmare. First she began to misplace items and instead of facing the reality of a failing memory, she would accuse her husband of stealing. Then when she would find something she'd been looking for, she would accuse him of playing evil tricks on her. Things went from bad to worse. They were people of some means and owned a motor home. One day as they sat with friends at one of those luxury campgrounds, she told everybody that her husband was a sexual pervert, somebody they ought to watch out for. It was the last straw. "In sickness and health" didn't cover this, he thought, and he left her and moved to another state. She also got mad at the church and left, but sometime later I was able to visit her in the hospital and later attend her funeral -- it was done by another pastor in another church -- not the first time that somebody in whom I had invested years of pastoral care left in bitterness. I was never able to find out where her husband went.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much by her husband, then by my wife -- we moved her to Central Louisiana about fourteen months before she died, because my father-in-law simply could no longer tend to her by himself. For many months he would alternate his time staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed. She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms. We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day the gangrenous golf ball sized piece necrotic tissue simply fell off. And to our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
I'm not sure whom all she recognized. For a period of time, she thought my wife was her mother, but she eventually ceased pretty much to be able to talk at all. It was slow and painful for the family. We never left her alone for more than a couple of minutes. We always ate our evening meal in her bedroom, with the television going. I hate using television as background noise; if fact, I pretty much hate television. But my wife's father kept it on, and he only turned it off when he decided to go to sleep. When it was my turn to sit with her, so Sandy and her Dad could go into town and get a break, I would turn it off and read. But I would also think.
I thought about killing her.
I knew there was the little bottle with morphine, sitting by the rented hospital bed in which she lay. From being with dozens of sick people at death, I knew there would be no autopsy, because she would have died under the care of a physician. I knew I could get away with it. I didn't dislike her. In fact, I truly believe I loved her and briefly entertained the idea that it would be a loving act -- loving to her, loving to her husband, to my wife, to my wife's sister who would leave her teaching job and family and travel to Louisiana for ten day stretches during those five months.
Of course, I never really embraced that kind of thinking. Why? Because I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe that God has foreordained whatever comes to pass -- God, "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11.) -- God, who "is faithful," who "will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but when you are tempted," "will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Corinthians 10:13.) -- God, who has numbered the hairs of our heads and before whom not a sparrow falls outside his sovereign purpose. (Matthew 10:29-31.) Everything that I ever had read in Scripture reminded me that no one dies apart from the plan and purpose of God. Mrs. Price was still alive, held incommunicado in the tiny cell of Alzheimer's, because God's purpose for her life had not yet been fulfilled. It wasn't simply whatever mysterious thing God might be accomplishing in her; it was what he would do through her in the lives of others -- in my life, too.
There is a profound sense of the futility of life that comes over you as you tend for a dying loved one, months on end. I thought about Saint Paul's words in Romans 8:20, 21, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
I thought about Qoholeth's words, so broadly paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor:
"Don't let the excitement of being young cause you to forget about your Creator. Honor him in your youth before the evil years come -- when you'll no longer enjoy living. It will be too late then to try to remember him when the sun and light and moon and stars are dim to your old eyes, and there is no silver lining left among your clouds. For there will come a time when your limbs will tremble with age, your strong legs will become weak, and your teeth will be too few to do their work, and there will be blindness too. Then let your lips be tightly closed while eating when your teeth are gone! And you will waken at dawn with the first note of the birds; but you yourself will be deaf and tuneless, with quavering voice. You will be afraid of heights and of falling-- a white-haired, withered old man, dragging himself along: without sexual desire, standing at death's door, and nearing his everlasting home as the mourners go along the streets. Yes, remember your Creator now while you are young -- before the silver cord of life snaps and the gold bowl is broken; before the pitcher is broken at the fountain and the wheel is broken at the cistern; then the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
But then I remembered Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, "Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
That "wasting away," especially in a decade long battle of defeat with Alzheimer's is difficult, and Scott Peck, for all his errors, was right on when he penned:
'Life is difficult.
'This is a great truth, one of the greatest truths. It is a great truth because once we truly see this truth, we transcend it. Once we truly know that life is difficult -- once we truly understand and accept it -- then life is no longer difficult. Because once it is accepted, the fact that life is difficult no longer matters.
'Most do not fully see this truth that life is difficult. Instead they moan more or less incessantly, noisily or subtly, about the enormity of their problems, their burdens, and their difficulties as if life were generally easy, as if life should be easy. They voice their belief, noisily or subtly, that their difficulties represent a unique kind of affliction that should not be and that has somehow been especially visited upon them, or else upon their families, their tribe, their class, their nation, their race or even their species, and not upon others. I know about this moaning because I have done my share.
'Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them? Do we want to teach our children to solve them?
'Discipline is the basic set of tools we require to solve life's problems. Without discipline we can solve nothing. With only some discipline we can solve only some problems. With total discipline we can solve all problems.'
But contrary to Peck, we cannot solve every problem with discipline; the futility of life means that there is a barrier which brings inutility to human action, a place where we simply bow our forehead before God's majesty and worship the one whose purposes are beyond our comprehension.
Peck continues:
'What makes life difficult is that the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one. Problems, depending upon their nature, evoke in us frustration or grief or sadness or loneliness or guilt or regret or anger or fear or anxiety or anguish or despair. These are uncomfortable feelings, often very uncomfortable, often as painful as any kind of physical pain, sometimes equaling the very worst kind of physical pain. Indeed, it is because of the pain that events or conflicts engender in us that we call them problems. And since life poses an endless series of problems, life is always difficult and is full of pain as well as joy.
'Yet it is in this whole process of meeting and solving problems that life has its meaning. Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between success and failure. Problems call forth our courage and our wisdom; indeed, they create our courage and our wisdom. It is because of problems that we grow mentally and spiritually. When we desire to encourage the growth of the human spirit, we challenge and encourage the human capacity to solve problems, just as in school we deliberately set problems for our children to solve. It is through the pain of confronting and resolving problems that we learn. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those things that hurt, instruct." It is for this reason that wise people learn not to dread but actually to welcome problems and actually to welcome the pain of problems.
'Most of us are not so wise. Fearing the pain involved, almost all of us, to a greater or lesser degree, attempt to avoid problems. We procrastinate, hoping that they will go away. We ignore them, forget them, pretend they do not exist. We even take drugs to assist us in ignoring them, so that by deadening ourselves to the pain we can forget the problems that cause the pain. We skirt around problems rather than meet them head on. We attempt to get out of them rather than suffer through them.
'This tendency to avoid problems and the emotional suffering inherent in them is the primary basis of all human mental illness. Since most of us have this tendency to a greater or lesser degree, most of us are mentally ill to a greater or lesser degree, lacking complete mental health. Some of us will go to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid our problems and the suffering they cause, proceeding far afield from all that is clearly good and sensible in order to try to find an easy way out, building the most elaborate fantasies in which to live, sometimes to the total exclusion of reality. In the succinctly elegant words of Carl Jung, "Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering."' (M. Scott Peck, M.D. _The Road Less Traveled_, pp. 15-17.)
Life is difficult, and it is fleeting. In so many ways, so much of life for so many people is unbelievably sad, and for everybody, sooner or later, no matter how much of this world's goods they enjoy, there is an underlying grief and emptiness to life in this world. "Even in laughter the heart may ache, and joy may end in grief." (Proverbs 14:13.) I used to watch that funny man, Johnny Carson, and my wife and I would comment on the sadness in his eyes. Life is a place of toil and tribulation.
"'Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace for evermore;
Till with the vision glorious
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest."
("The Church's One Foundation," Samuel J. Stone and Samuel S. Wesley.)
Yet it is only in this sober realization that life is full of sadness, that we can discover the secret to happiness, not only in the world to come, but in the here and now, too. For Saint Peter encourages, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter 1:8.)
"All I once held dear, built my life upon
All this world reveres and wars to own
All I once thought gain, I have counted loss
Spent and worthless now, compared to this
"Now my heart's desire is to know you more
To be found in you, and known as yours
To possess by faith what I could not earn
All surpassing gift of righteousness
"Oh to know the power of your risen life
And to know you in your suffering
To become like you in your death my Lord
So with You to live
And never die
(Chorus:)
"Knowing you, Jesus, knowing you
There is no greater thing
You're my all, you're the best
You're my joy, my righteousness
And I love you, Lord."
("Knowing You," Graham Kendrick.)
What goes on in the sequestered soul silently waiting the summons to face the last enemy before the blessed embrace, where a nail-pierced hand wipes away every tear? God knows; I don't. But I the promise of Proverbs 4:18 is still true, "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Can a bed of numbed pain in that drifting consciousness of Alzheimer's be a trysting place with Jesus? When my own wife once lay for days in a coma, she remembers being called back from a beautiful place of peace with rolling hills of verdant grass and blooming flowers; it was full of people, beatific with holy mirth. Who knows? What we do know is that we have "a more sure word of prophecy," Holy Scripture. (2 Peter 1:19.) And that Word gives us a "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life."
"While I draw this fleeting breath,
When my eye-strings break in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee."
("Rock of Ages," Augustus M. Toplady.)
There is compelling evidence that both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Price hid themselves in Christ, the mighty Rock, so I am glad they are dead -- glad for their families, but more importantly glad for them -- for death is always gain for the believer. (Philippians 1:21.) It is the completion of our course and the final victory in the battle with sin; it is final rest and joy unspeakable. It is the open door to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in the Great Hall of the King of kings.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone." (The Larger Catechism, 70)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
http://www.rbvincent.com
http://www.grace-presbyterian.org
http://www.gcsla.org
http://www.rbvincent.com/reformedcharismatic.htm
Monday, June 14, 2004
For those of you that are offended easily, I suggest that you not read the rest of this.
Recently, the subject of masturbation came up in a group that I was in. I ran into one of these Bible-thumping “Christians” that disgrace the Word of God by adding to it. I thought that friends of mine may benefit from what was discussed. For now, I will leave out the name of the person…that is, unless he keeps asking for it. *Dave is grinning. Please note: Unless something is misspelled by myself, I left the posts unaltered for the other guys. This includes misspellings which I believe tell their own story.
It started like this:
Someone wrote:
“I agree that excessive and addictive masturbation is a problem, and a
serious and self-destructive for many heterosexual and homosexual
guys. I am an accountability partner regualrly to four straight
guys, and a listenng ear to many others over the years, and each one
of them is overwhelmed by masturbation to varying degress, so it's
not just an SSA issue, but a man's issue.
96% of guys masturbate at some time in their lives, and 4% lie !
What is WRONG is the plotting to be home alone, planning to buy porno
mags, ensuring that you have a couple of hours alone with the
computer or late night television/video, or have a quick binge and
erotic fantasy scenario that is the real destructive force. Then we
have fallen to the temptation and are totally absorbed in feeding the
sin, going a further, more destructive step each time. But I agree
with the writers who say that it is NOT the same as acting out with
another guy, cos that causes another to sin, which is worse, believe
me.”
I wrote:
“I have often heard it said that masturbating is not wrong as long as you do not
lust. The problem is that no one can seem to define lust for me apart from
natural desire. It is completely normal for a man to be attracted to a woman
who has large breasts and a pretty face. So where does lust begin and
admiration end?”
This person, hereafter known as “The Bible Thumper” aka TBT wrote:
“I was wondering if you believe one thing and your heart says something entirely
different, that is a possibility. I know that if I were to do the act, it would
have to be in private when no one was watching. That is an indicater for the
conscience to see if you are deceiving your own heart and being unclean. Another
instance would be if you can do it if you knew that the Lord Jesus Christ was
there watching you. Would you do it then? Don't deceive your own hearts.
Masterbation is a deviant form of the use of the member that God has
predetermined for it.”
I responded:
“I make love to my wife in private. Does that make it wrong? I also shower in private. Should I not shower? I personally believe that sex is a very spiritual experience. It is with me and my wife and when she is not available or not able to be with me, I masturbate. I’ve even prayed while I’ve done it thanking God for the body he gave me and the ability to enjoy it.
If God has commanded you not to masturbate, then by all means, do not do it. But blanket statements that condemn the act that the Bible only speaks about in a neutral setting is adding to Scripture and the Bible has very strong warnings for those who do that.”
TBT wrote to me in a private email:
“I have noticed that in the past, you have not agreed with hardly anything I have said. I also know that you are a seminary student. I am asking myself why is this man going into the ministry anyway? He doesn't like it when he is called to the carpet and he obviously doesn't like me so why does he bother at all? I am not going to tell you things to help your conscience block out what Gods word has already stated.If you have an evil heart of unbelief, confess it and forsake it and move on. I am not the kind of person who will help you stay in your sin, that is what the Christian gay ministries are all about. They want you to be confirmed in your sin. I will try to help you out of your sin if I can. I am not a liberal any longer because I have repented and forsook that way.
I told you that I have one more day of finals and then I will be able to research the old Testament concerning that masturbation topic. If you can't wait for me, then by all means get off your ass and find it your self. The things I speak to you are in love.”
I responded to him in private:
“I have noticed that in the past, you have not agreed with hardly anything I
have said.”
You’re right.
“I also know that you are a seminary student.”
I am not a seminary student. I am still undergrad.
“I am asking myself why is this man going into the ministry anyway??”
I think a better question is why you have the right to question my motivation.
“He doesn't like it when he is called to the carpet and he obviously doesn't
like me so why does he bother at all??”
Where do you get that I don’t like being called to the carpet? I’m calling you
to the carpet, but you won’t come. Defend your beliefs. If you can’t, they’re
not worth believing. And where do you get that I don’t like you? I’ve never
even met you. I simply go by what you post.
“I am not going to tell you things to help your conscience block out what Gods
word has already stated.”
What are you talking about here? Masturbation? I’m simply asking you to show
me in the Bible where masturbation is wrong.
“If you have an evil heart of unbelief, confess it and forsake it and move on.”
…I’ve never questioned your intentions. Why are you questioning mine? You’ve given me nothing to hang my hat on here. I’m just asking you to back up
what you say.
“I am not the kind of person who will help you stay in your sin, that is what
the Christian gay ministries are all about.”
Good. I’m glad you’re not that kind of person. But you cannot even prove to me
that masturbation is a sin. So why are you trying to help me stay out of it?
“They want you to be confirmed in your sin. I will try to help you out of your
sin if I can. I am not a liberal any longer because I have repented and forsook
that way.”
Here I am. Help me by showing me what the God’s Word, the Bible says.
“I told you that I have one more day of finals and then I will be able to
research the old Testament concerning that masturbation topic. If you can't
wait for me, then by all means get off your ass and find it yourself.”
Oh, here it comes. …I have done extensive research in this area and I am
calling YOU to the carpet. BRING IT. That’s the only reason I asked you to
show me. You can’t show me.
“The things I speak to you are in love.”
I missed the love part. Was that the “get off your ass and find it yourself”
part?
Someone went on to mention the Levitical passage regarding a man being unclean if he ejaculated. I added:
“If you will allow me to wax theological, there are three divisions of the law:
civil, ceremonial, and moral. Liberal theologians want to lump the law together
and throw it all out, but the moral laws reflect the character of God. Since
God is immutable, those laws do not change. Civil laws, such as laws for
uncleaness, were made to keep disease and such from coming into the camp. God
instituted these to protect his covenant people. Ceremonial laws usually had to
do with the tabernacle and such. The latter two really do not apply for us
today, although I would argue that they are not irrelevant. There's just
something about that covenant love!”
Someone asked me which category I believed that masturbation fell into. I said:
“Really, I don't think it belongs in any category. If you're referencing the OT
passage, then I believe that was civil law and not to be necessarily followed.”
TBT wrote:
“I recently departed from [NAME OMITTED] because of the evil
communication of the wicked there was too deviseive to stay.There is some very
wicked people in these gay groups who want to stay in their sin, keep others in
their sin, and justify themselves for causing others to stumble. This
masterbation issue is black and white. The self righteous will try to justify
their compromises and call it grey. What that reveals to me is a lack of
spiritual conviction in these last days.”
My patience wore thin, so I responded:
“…it's time for you to put up or shut up. You recently told me in a private
email to ‘get off my ass and look it up yourself.’ Well, physician heal
thyself. You have no biblical evidence to support your view of masturbation and
you are not content to let others disagree with you. Rather, you want to beat
them over the head with the Bible. It's completely unbiblical. Until you offer
evidence, I think it's best that you stop your rambling. When you can offer
biblical support for your view, bring it. Until then, I'm living by grace and
not by a law that went away with the new covenant.”
In a public message, TBT said:
I gave you chapter and verses referrences in my personal email to you. Now you
are publicly rebuking me to scorn me before all. I know what you are all about,
a sower of discord among bretheren. This is my last email I will send you
because the word of God says we are not to reprove a scorner.
I responded:
“…it's really funny how to stick the word of God in one email, ignore it in
another, tell me to ‘get off my ass’ in another and then two lines later tell me
you do out of love. Go ahead and pick and choose the parts of the Bible you
want to believe and add to it what you think will be there. Just post your crap
in any board that I'm a member of because I will be sure to call you out on it.”
He responded:
“You are deviseive trouble maker. go ahead and others will see you for what you
really are.”
Another person on the message board directed a message to TBT and said:
“I apologize for butting into a private(?) fued but often I don't even read posts
from you because to me, your writing is rather abrasive and hard lined. It
reminds me too much of my own self when I was younger and thought that
everything and every situation had an answer. Truth is I too often overlooked
circumstances and did not consider all of the aspects of love defined in 1 Cor
13:4-7
4Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5or rude.
Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record
of when it has been wronged. 6It is never glad about injustice but rejoices
whenever the truth wins out. 7Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always
hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
I used to zero in on verse 6 and think that somehow I knew the scripture and
God's intent well enough to always be the truth bearer for others. Well, thank
God, I have grown from that point and the first thing that I try to look at is
verse 4 (which comes first) and then if I can get through that I check out verse
5 to see if my motives are right. If they are and I can submit what I believe
to be God's truth out of compassion and with the understanding that I might not
have the whole picture of scripture and can be instructed further, then I offer
my thoughts.
Bottom line is that I used to hit people over the head with what I knew to be
the truth and now I realize that much to my chagrin, I don't know as much about
the Word as I thought I did. (Did you ever go back through your bible and look
at your notes and wonder why you made some of them? They seemed so right when
you wrote them but years later you see a different picture because you have
gained more wisdom to go with your knowlege - just curious to see if I am the
only one who does this).
You might find that taking this approach in your posts will get more favorable
results.”
TBT wrote back:
“Thank you for the reproof. Your right I was a little out of sorts with my
brother Dave McDowell. I should have prayed for him instead. I also should have
sent him correspondance privatly. I guess I wasn't very loving was I. You are
correct, I had wrong motives for correcting him. I had read his other emails and
I assumed that he was going to hold his position regardless of the evidence to
the contrary. Sort of ‘DONT BOTHER ME WITH FACTS, I HAVE MY MIND MADE UP’.”
Someone else posted this:
“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over
doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who
is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who
does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats;
for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To
his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand,
for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above
another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully
convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to
the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does
not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God
thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and
gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies
to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we
die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the
Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that
He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you
judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?
For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written: "As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and
every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give
account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another
anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a
cause to fall in our brother's way.”
I responded in a message that tried to explain everything:
“Hmmm...I've often wondered...which do you guys think is stronger (or maybe you
both think they are equal), the biblical admonition to not be weak in your faith
or the biblical admonition for stumbling blocks and weaker brothers?
I only ask this because some of you (not the person that posted this verse btw)
have been critical of the way that I handled things with [NAME OMITTED]. I, in no way, want to place a stumbling block before [NAME OMITTED] or cause him, if he is a weaker brother, to stumble and fall. Please understand my intentions.
There are way too many people in the "ex-gay" movement who feel that they must
use the Bible and twist it to make it say things it doesn't because they
believe, good-intentioned or not, that their pet sin is wrong or whatever they
are trying to put forth.
My issue with [NAME OMITTED] (and [NAME OMITTED], despite what you think, it is not personal) is not what he says, but how he says it. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to not masturbate because they think that it is wrong for them to do so. I may also say that if you believe that it is wrong for you to masturbate or
that you should abstain from masturbation because God wants you to that you
should not masturbate. To do so would be a sin against God. If you believe
that God would have you fast, and you do not do it, you're sinning. It is the
same with masturbation.
Sin is not defined always by action, but rather by a state that we are in. We
are born depraved (totally depraved, I believe). We are in a state of sin when
we are born. The Bible says that we are dead in our sins. Interestingly
enough, there is no amount of sin that you can commit to send you to hell. A
person goes to hell because they die without Jesus. An unbeliever has no amount
of sin that he can commit that will send him any more to hell that he already in
(unless you get into degrees of hell which is a whole other issue. I'm speaking
here of hell in general) and there is no amount of good that he can do that will
get him or her to heaven. The only defining thing that sends you heaven or hell
is Jesus. Sin is probably best defined, at least in terms of action, as missing
the mark.
Now, with that being said, does the Bible say anything about masturbation? It
does. But it never condemns it, but it never extols it either. Therefore, I
may humbly offer, that it cannot be argued that the act of masturbation, in and
of itself, is sin. As I have said before and earlier, if you believe that it is
wrong for you to masturbate or that you should abstain from masturbation because
God wants you to that you should not masturbate. To do so would be a sin
against God.
With all that being said, I've never believed that the biblical admonition
against laying stumbling blocks before others and the admonition of the weaker
brother was complete in and of itself. When balance with other passages of
Scripture, it is clear that the purpose is not for the brother to remain weak,
but rather for him to grow strong. This has nothing to do with masturbation,
per se. You could apply this to all areas of spiritual growth. You may stumble
over the issue of, let's say stealing. You may avoid grocery or department
stores because the temptation is too much. But sooner or later, you got to eat
and buy clothes. Too often, we want to throw out a "biblical" admonition against
stores when the Bible does not draw the line at going to a store, it draws it at
stealing. For myself, it was a wonderful liberating moment when I realized that
I could stand on what the Word of God said, realizing that God said what he said for a reason, and it could be, that he did not say some things for a reason. It was God's will that
I develop a biblical view of sexuality. Stronger brothers do not need to add to
the Scriptures in order to justify their behavior. They simply stand on
Scripure alone (Sola Scriptura).
God knows that I've got a long way to go, but I know that I'm stronger than I
was ten years ago when I became a Christian.
Sola Gratia,
Sola Scriptura,
Soli Deo Gloria!
Recently, the subject of masturbation came up in a group that I was in. I ran into one of these Bible-thumping “Christians” that disgrace the Word of God by adding to it. I thought that friends of mine may benefit from what was discussed. For now, I will leave out the name of the person…that is, unless he keeps asking for it. *Dave is grinning. Please note: Unless something is misspelled by myself, I left the posts unaltered for the other guys. This includes misspellings which I believe tell their own story.
It started like this:
Someone wrote:
“I agree that excessive and addictive masturbation is a problem, and a
serious and self-destructive for many heterosexual and homosexual
guys. I am an accountability partner regualrly to four straight
guys, and a listenng ear to many others over the years, and each one
of them is overwhelmed by masturbation to varying degress, so it's
not just an SSA issue, but a man's issue.
96% of guys masturbate at some time in their lives, and 4% lie !
What is WRONG is the plotting to be home alone, planning to buy porno
mags, ensuring that you have a couple of hours alone with the
computer or late night television/video, or have a quick binge and
erotic fantasy scenario that is the real destructive force. Then we
have fallen to the temptation and are totally absorbed in feeding the
sin, going a further, more destructive step each time. But I agree
with the writers who say that it is NOT the same as acting out with
another guy, cos that causes another to sin, which is worse, believe
me.”
I wrote:
“I have often heard it said that masturbating is not wrong as long as you do not
lust. The problem is that no one can seem to define lust for me apart from
natural desire. It is completely normal for a man to be attracted to a woman
who has large breasts and a pretty face. So where does lust begin and
admiration end?”
This person, hereafter known as “The Bible Thumper” aka TBT wrote:
“I was wondering if you believe one thing and your heart says something entirely
different, that is a possibility. I know that if I were to do the act, it would
have to be in private when no one was watching. That is an indicater for the
conscience to see if you are deceiving your own heart and being unclean. Another
instance would be if you can do it if you knew that the Lord Jesus Christ was
there watching you. Would you do it then? Don't deceive your own hearts.
Masterbation is a deviant form of the use of the member that God has
predetermined for it.”
I responded:
“I make love to my wife in private. Does that make it wrong? I also shower in private. Should I not shower? I personally believe that sex is a very spiritual experience. It is with me and my wife and when she is not available or not able to be with me, I masturbate. I’ve even prayed while I’ve done it thanking God for the body he gave me and the ability to enjoy it.
If God has commanded you not to masturbate, then by all means, do not do it. But blanket statements that condemn the act that the Bible only speaks about in a neutral setting is adding to Scripture and the Bible has very strong warnings for those who do that.”
TBT wrote to me in a private email:
“I have noticed that in the past, you have not agreed with hardly anything I have said. I also know that you are a seminary student. I am asking myself why is this man going into the ministry anyway? He doesn't like it when he is called to the carpet and he obviously doesn't like me so why does he bother at all? I am not going to tell you things to help your conscience block out what Gods word has already stated.If you have an evil heart of unbelief, confess it and forsake it and move on. I am not the kind of person who will help you stay in your sin, that is what the Christian gay ministries are all about. They want you to be confirmed in your sin. I will try to help you out of your sin if I can. I am not a liberal any longer because I have repented and forsook that way.
I told you that I have one more day of finals and then I will be able to research the old Testament concerning that masturbation topic. If you can't wait for me, then by all means get off your ass and find it your self. The things I speak to you are in love.”
I responded to him in private:
“I have noticed that in the past, you have not agreed with hardly anything I
have said.”
You’re right.
“I also know that you are a seminary student.”
I am not a seminary student. I am still undergrad.
“I am asking myself why is this man going into the ministry anyway??”
I think a better question is why you have the right to question my motivation.
“He doesn't like it when he is called to the carpet and he obviously doesn't
like me so why does he bother at all??”
Where do you get that I don’t like being called to the carpet? I’m calling you
to the carpet, but you won’t come. Defend your beliefs. If you can’t, they’re
not worth believing. And where do you get that I don’t like you? I’ve never
even met you. I simply go by what you post.
“I am not going to tell you things to help your conscience block out what Gods
word has already stated.”
What are you talking about here? Masturbation? I’m simply asking you to show
me in the Bible where masturbation is wrong.
“If you have an evil heart of unbelief, confess it and forsake it and move on.”
…I’ve never questioned your intentions. Why are you questioning mine? You’ve given me nothing to hang my hat on here. I’m just asking you to back up
what you say.
“I am not the kind of person who will help you stay in your sin, that is what
the Christian gay ministries are all about.”
Good. I’m glad you’re not that kind of person. But you cannot even prove to me
that masturbation is a sin. So why are you trying to help me stay out of it?
“They want you to be confirmed in your sin. I will try to help you out of your
sin if I can. I am not a liberal any longer because I have repented and forsook
that way.”
Here I am. Help me by showing me what the God’s Word, the Bible says.
“I told you that I have one more day of finals and then I will be able to
research the old Testament concerning that masturbation topic. If you can't
wait for me, then by all means get off your ass and find it yourself.”
Oh, here it comes. …I have done extensive research in this area and I am
calling YOU to the carpet. BRING IT. That’s the only reason I asked you to
show me. You can’t show me.
“The things I speak to you are in love.”
I missed the love part. Was that the “get off your ass and find it yourself”
part?
Someone went on to mention the Levitical passage regarding a man being unclean if he ejaculated. I added:
“If you will allow me to wax theological, there are three divisions of the law:
civil, ceremonial, and moral. Liberal theologians want to lump the law together
and throw it all out, but the moral laws reflect the character of God. Since
God is immutable, those laws do not change. Civil laws, such as laws for
uncleaness, were made to keep disease and such from coming into the camp. God
instituted these to protect his covenant people. Ceremonial laws usually had to
do with the tabernacle and such. The latter two really do not apply for us
today, although I would argue that they are not irrelevant. There's just
something about that covenant love!”
Someone asked me which category I believed that masturbation fell into. I said:
“Really, I don't think it belongs in any category. If you're referencing the OT
passage, then I believe that was civil law and not to be necessarily followed.”
TBT wrote:
“I recently departed from [NAME OMITTED] because of the evil
communication of the wicked there was too deviseive to stay.There is some very
wicked people in these gay groups who want to stay in their sin, keep others in
their sin, and justify themselves for causing others to stumble. This
masterbation issue is black and white. The self righteous will try to justify
their compromises and call it grey. What that reveals to me is a lack of
spiritual conviction in these last days.”
My patience wore thin, so I responded:
“…it's time for you to put up or shut up. You recently told me in a private
email to ‘get off my ass and look it up yourself.’ Well, physician heal
thyself. You have no biblical evidence to support your view of masturbation and
you are not content to let others disagree with you. Rather, you want to beat
them over the head with the Bible. It's completely unbiblical. Until you offer
evidence, I think it's best that you stop your rambling. When you can offer
biblical support for your view, bring it. Until then, I'm living by grace and
not by a law that went away with the new covenant.”
In a public message, TBT said:
I gave you chapter and verses referrences in my personal email to you. Now you
are publicly rebuking me to scorn me before all. I know what you are all about,
a sower of discord among bretheren. This is my last email I will send you
because the word of God says we are not to reprove a scorner.
I responded:
“…it's really funny how to stick the word of God in one email, ignore it in
another, tell me to ‘get off my ass’ in another and then two lines later tell me
you do out of love. Go ahead and pick and choose the parts of the Bible you
want to believe and add to it what you think will be there. Just post your crap
in any board that I'm a member of because I will be sure to call you out on it.”
He responded:
“You are deviseive trouble maker. go ahead and others will see you for what you
really are.”
Another person on the message board directed a message to TBT and said:
“I apologize for butting into a private(?) fued but often I don't even read posts
from you because to me, your writing is rather abrasive and hard lined. It
reminds me too much of my own self when I was younger and thought that
everything and every situation had an answer. Truth is I too often overlooked
circumstances and did not consider all of the aspects of love defined in 1 Cor
13:4-7
4Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5or rude.
Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record
of when it has been wronged. 6It is never glad about injustice but rejoices
whenever the truth wins out. 7Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always
hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
I used to zero in on verse 6 and think that somehow I knew the scripture and
God's intent well enough to always be the truth bearer for others. Well, thank
God, I have grown from that point and the first thing that I try to look at is
verse 4 (which comes first) and then if I can get through that I check out verse
5 to see if my motives are right. If they are and I can submit what I believe
to be God's truth out of compassion and with the understanding that I might not
have the whole picture of scripture and can be instructed further, then I offer
my thoughts.
Bottom line is that I used to hit people over the head with what I knew to be
the truth and now I realize that much to my chagrin, I don't know as much about
the Word as I thought I did. (Did you ever go back through your bible and look
at your notes and wonder why you made some of them? They seemed so right when
you wrote them but years later you see a different picture because you have
gained more wisdom to go with your knowlege - just curious to see if I am the
only one who does this).
You might find that taking this approach in your posts will get more favorable
results.”
TBT wrote back:
“Thank you for the reproof. Your right I was a little out of sorts with my
brother Dave McDowell. I should have prayed for him instead. I also should have
sent him correspondance privatly. I guess I wasn't very loving was I. You are
correct, I had wrong motives for correcting him. I had read his other emails and
I assumed that he was going to hold his position regardless of the evidence to
the contrary. Sort of ‘DONT BOTHER ME WITH FACTS, I HAVE MY MIND MADE UP’.”
Someone else posted this:
“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over
doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who
is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who
does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats;
for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To
his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand,
for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above
another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully
convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to
the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does
not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God
thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and
gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies
to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we
die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the
Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that
He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you
judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?
For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written: "As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and
every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give
account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another
anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a
cause to fall in our brother's way.”
I responded in a message that tried to explain everything:
“Hmmm...I've often wondered...which do you guys think is stronger (or maybe you
both think they are equal), the biblical admonition to not be weak in your faith
or the biblical admonition for stumbling blocks and weaker brothers?
I only ask this because some of you (not the person that posted this verse btw)
have been critical of the way that I handled things with [NAME OMITTED]. I, in no way, want to place a stumbling block before [NAME OMITTED] or cause him, if he is a weaker brother, to stumble and fall. Please understand my intentions.
There are way too many people in the "ex-gay" movement who feel that they must
use the Bible and twist it to make it say things it doesn't because they
believe, good-intentioned or not, that their pet sin is wrong or whatever they
are trying to put forth.
My issue with [NAME OMITTED] (and [NAME OMITTED], despite what you think, it is not personal) is not what he says, but how he says it. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to not masturbate because they think that it is wrong for them to do so. I may also say that if you believe that it is wrong for you to masturbate or
that you should abstain from masturbation because God wants you to that you
should not masturbate. To do so would be a sin against God. If you believe
that God would have you fast, and you do not do it, you're sinning. It is the
same with masturbation.
Sin is not defined always by action, but rather by a state that we are in. We
are born depraved (totally depraved, I believe). We are in a state of sin when
we are born. The Bible says that we are dead in our sins. Interestingly
enough, there is no amount of sin that you can commit to send you to hell. A
person goes to hell because they die without Jesus. An unbeliever has no amount
of sin that he can commit that will send him any more to hell that he already in
(unless you get into degrees of hell which is a whole other issue. I'm speaking
here of hell in general) and there is no amount of good that he can do that will
get him or her to heaven. The only defining thing that sends you heaven or hell
is Jesus. Sin is probably best defined, at least in terms of action, as missing
the mark.
Now, with that being said, does the Bible say anything about masturbation? It
does. But it never condemns it, but it never extols it either. Therefore, I
may humbly offer, that it cannot be argued that the act of masturbation, in and
of itself, is sin. As I have said before and earlier, if you believe that it is
wrong for you to masturbate or that you should abstain from masturbation because
God wants you to that you should not masturbate. To do so would be a sin
against God.
With all that being said, I've never believed that the biblical admonition
against laying stumbling blocks before others and the admonition of the weaker
brother was complete in and of itself. When balance with other passages of
Scripture, it is clear that the purpose is not for the brother to remain weak,
but rather for him to grow strong. This has nothing to do with masturbation,
per se. You could apply this to all areas of spiritual growth. You may stumble
over the issue of, let's say stealing. You may avoid grocery or department
stores because the temptation is too much. But sooner or later, you got to eat
and buy clothes. Too often, we want to throw out a "biblical" admonition against
stores when the Bible does not draw the line at going to a store, it draws it at
stealing. For myself, it was a wonderful liberating moment when I realized that
I could stand on what the Word of God said, realizing that God said what he said for a reason, and it could be, that he did not say some things for a reason. It was God's will that
I develop a biblical view of sexuality. Stronger brothers do not need to add to
the Scriptures in order to justify their behavior. They simply stand on
Scripure alone (Sola Scriptura).
God knows that I've got a long way to go, but I know that I'm stronger than I
was ten years ago when I became a Christian.
Sola Gratia,
Sola Scriptura,
Soli Deo Gloria!
A Victory For Common Sense!!
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
1 hour, 1 minute ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.
The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.
Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the court.
"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."
The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) agreed with him.
The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."
The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.
The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.
On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.
"The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."
Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is disappointed.
"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future," Lynn said. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country."
On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.
"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.
Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
1 hour, 1 minute ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.
The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.
Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the court.
"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."
The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) agreed with him.
The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."
The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.
The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.
On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.
"The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."
Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is disappointed.
"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future," Lynn said. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country."
On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.
"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.
Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
Monday, June 07, 2004
I was not quite five years old when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, but I was 12 years old when he left office. I grew up with Ronald Reagan so I was drawn to tears when I heard of his passing.
When I think of the 80’s, there are a few things that come to mind: Back To The Future, Hair Metal, big hair, hoola-hoop earrings, acid-wash jeans, Belinda Carlisle, Pepsi Free, Max Headrom, the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan. President Reagan inherited quite a mess from Carter’s doom-and-gloom administration. However, he proved himself with his quick wit and his promotion of “Reaganomics” that utilized a military and arms buildup to not only provide this country with much-needed jobs, but to outspend the Soviet Union which subsequently led to their disintegration just two years after Reagan left office.
Despite your political affiliation, you cannot help but admire a man who really did so much for this country. You cannot deny what the situation was in 1981 and you cannot deny what it was in 1989 when he left office. It was much better.
Thank you, President Reagan.
When I think of the 80’s, there are a few things that come to mind: Back To The Future, Hair Metal, big hair, hoola-hoop earrings, acid-wash jeans, Belinda Carlisle, Pepsi Free, Max Headrom, the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan. President Reagan inherited quite a mess from Carter’s doom-and-gloom administration. However, he proved himself with his quick wit and his promotion of “Reaganomics” that utilized a military and arms buildup to not only provide this country with much-needed jobs, but to outspend the Soviet Union which subsequently led to their disintegration just two years after Reagan left office.
Despite your political affiliation, you cannot help but admire a man who really did so much for this country. You cannot deny what the situation was in 1981 and you cannot deny what it was in 1989 when he left office. It was much better.
Thank you, President Reagan.
Somebody sent this to me. I like it.
I like big cars, big boats, big motorcycles, big houses and big campfires. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some governmental stooge with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts for squirting out babies. Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game. I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television,and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America and see what happens. Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door. I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different,weird, or tick me off. When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70%of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the law of statistics. I know what sex is, and there are not varying degrees of it. If I received sex from one of my subordinates in my office, it wouldn't be a private matter or my personal business. I would be "FIRED" immediately! I believe that if you are selling me a milk shake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen you should have to speak English!. My father and grandfather should not have died in vain so you can leave the countries! you were born in to come over and disrespect ours. I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the order"freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines. I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation recount votes when needed. I know what the definition of lying is. I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business. We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document and open to their interpretations. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television, and that doesn't stop you from watching them. I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude. I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you.. It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack his/her little ass when necessary and say "NO". I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And please stay home until that new lip ring heals, I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me french fries! I am sick of "Political Correctness" and of all the suck ups that go along with it. I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa, so how can they be "African Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and no where else. And if you don't like my point of view, tough! GET OVER IT!!! WAKE UP WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A COUNTRY TO WAKE UP TO.
I like big cars, big boats, big motorcycles, big houses and big campfires. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some governmental stooge with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts for squirting out babies. Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game. I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television,and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America and see what happens. Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door. I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different,weird, or tick me off. When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70%of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the law of statistics. I know what sex is, and there are not varying degrees of it. If I received sex from one of my subordinates in my office, it wouldn't be a private matter or my personal business. I would be "FIRED" immediately! I believe that if you are selling me a milk shake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen you should have to speak English!. My father and grandfather should not have died in vain so you can leave the countries! you were born in to come over and disrespect ours. I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the order"freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines. I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation recount votes when needed. I know what the definition of lying is. I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business. We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document and open to their interpretations. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television, and that doesn't stop you from watching them. I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude. I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you.. It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack his/her little ass when necessary and say "NO". I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And please stay home until that new lip ring heals, I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me french fries! I am sick of "Political Correctness" and of all the suck ups that go along with it. I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa, so how can they be "African Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and no where else. And if you don't like my point of view, tough! GET OVER IT!!! WAKE UP WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A COUNTRY TO WAKE UP TO.
Friday, June 04, 2004
ORLANDO, Florida — The biggest rock band of the past decade has broken up.
After nearly 10 years together and more than 24 million albums sold, Creed have decided to put an end to their string of multiplatinum records and chart-topping singles. The choice was made months ago, when guitarist Mark Tremonti and singer Scott Stapp reconvened after a yearlong hiatus and ran into problems.
"We had gotten together two or three times and nothing happened," Tremonti explained. "We got our instruments and played, but neither of us was taking it seriously. We were just running in circles. There wasn't a vibe like on the previous records. It felt very joblike. We knew that it would take us years to get a record out."
The trouble wasn't that the collaborative couple — Tremonti was responsible for the music, Stapp for the lyrics — were clashing creatively. Personal issues, mostly between Stapp and the rest of Creed, caused an irreparable rift that ultimately led to the band's demise.
"Scott and I hadn't been close for a while," Tremonti said, "and things just weren't working out. ... None of us really argued amongst each other. It was always Scott who had the problem."
Stapp declined to be interviewed for this story.
The animosity apparently began to churn two years ago, while Creed were promoting 2001's Weathered on a tour that Tremonti and drummer Scott Phillips described as long and grueling. For starters, to preserve his voice, Stapp sat out soundchecks, which had been where the bandmembers would goof around and playfully bounce new ideas off each other. So Tremonti was forced to germinate those ideas with Phillips and touring bassist Brett Hestla, who had replaced founding member Brian Marshall in 2000, and the collaboration got under Stapp's skin.
Having to postpone several dates because of Stapp's April 2002 car accident (see "Scott Stapp Discusses Accident That Derailed Creed Tour"), and a few more shows later that year due to his bout with laryngitis, only added to tensions in the band. Meanwhile, the other bandmembers got the sense that their singer wasn't as committed as they were, and his attention seemed fractured.
"It's not fun to count on other people when they're not that focused," Tremonti said. "Scott wasn't in the mindset that we were. He wasn't as focused on the current tour. He had 800 things on his mind, and I think that distracted him from what we were doing."
Among the ventures that Stapp was exploring was a clothing line called Screamline and forays into acting.
"He definitely had his plate full, whether it was professional or personal," Phillips said. "He always had the cell phone going," the drummer added, with an eyebrow raised to relay his disgust.
Well aware that something wasn't right in the band's dynamic, Stapp, Phillips and Hestla began talking about their situation, though they didn't figure a permanent split was imminent.
"When every day just seemed to get weirder and weirder, it's natural to start discussing that with the people around you," Phillips said. "There wasn't ever a point where anyone was like, 'All right, I'm done with it.' It was more a question of what exactly is happening. What's going to happen tomorrow night? What's going to happen three months from now?"
The pinnacle of Creed's problems took place in Chicago in December 2002. Whether Stapp was inebriated or simply sick, as he had claimed, his performance was so terrible that some members of the crowd sued the band for sucking. For a band proud of its reputation for exciting and passionate performances, such a show was inexcusable. Some fans even balked at Stapp's heavy-handed Christ-like poses, which he claimed symbolized that he "had some things going on in [his] life," "kind of felt alone" and "didn't think anybody had [his] back at the time" (see "Creed Singer Defends 'Symbolic, Personal Gesture' He Made At 'Drunken' Show").
"My entire family was at that show," Tremonti said, "so I was very irritated. But I forgave Scott for it. I talked to him about it, [but he didn't] offer any kind of explanation. That's probably what bothered me the most. There was no closure on it. It was like, 'Let's keep moving on,' and I was like, 'Well, we've got to address these issues,' but we just never did."
The guitarist wasn't really much help in explaining what caused Stapp's uncharacteristic behavior that night, since their strong friendship, on which the band had been built, had deteriorated.
"We didn't really speak too much, so as for what he did on his personal time, we had no idea," Tremonti said. "We just knew that [over time] he would just slowly act a little more distant and do things that we didn't really approve of. So we really don't know what happened in Chicago, except that it was a low point in a long year."
Following the tour, the band rested for the next year, a move spurred more by Stapp than by his bandmates. According to Tremonti, Stapp's outlook for Creed entailed making an album every couple of years and then touring for only a few months. To the workaholic Tremonti this wasn't acceptable, so he figured he'd vent his creative juices in a side project.
Although the speed-metal-minded Downshifter never got off the ground (Tremonti had envisioned working with Hatebreed's Jamey Jasta and Slipknot's Joey Jordison), just the mere thought that his songwriting partner would apply his talents elsewhere bothered Stapp.
"We kept having [personal] problems, and my side project turned into 'Creed is not working,' " Tremonti said. "And to keep performing, I had to make a decision to move on."
The last time he spoke to Stapp was in February, when the two were still trying to rekindle their creative fires for the follow-up to Weathered. When collaboration and reconciliation proved futile, Tremonti introduced the idea of a world without Creed.
"We just wanted it to be fun," he said. "And it just got to the level where it was so political and there was so much drama that it just drove us crazy and you just can't ... We wanted to do this for the music, and you're not supposed to be in a rock band to be miserable or have to walk on your tiptoes around people."
Tremonti's side project took a more serious turn when he recruited Phillips and Creed's original bassist, Brian Marshall. The trio enlisted singer Myles Kennedy, formerly of the Mayfield Four, and Alter Bridge was born. Since February, the band had been working on its debut album, One Day Remains, at Tremonti's Orlando, Florida, home studio. The disc is due on August 10, with a first single, "Open Your Eyes," expected to surface later this month and a promotional tour of radio stations slated for mid-July.
"I'm more driven now than I've ever been," Tremonti said. "If you've tasted it and been there, you need to get back. Rock and roll, to me, is like a drug. I need to get out there and perform and get the music out there. That's why we've been a band for only five months and we're coming out with a record in another two."
Stapp is working on a solo album with hip-hop producer 7 Aurelius, according to a Wind-Up Records spokesperson. Before that is released, however, he'll contribute a track to an album inspired by the film "The Passion of the Christ," which the label will release August 31 (see "Creed Singer Offers Songs To Mel Gibson For 'The Passion' ").
"Creed was one of the most amazing journeys through music and friendship I am blessed to say I was a part of," the singer expressed in a statement. "I made memories I can never replace. I just want to thank the fans who supported us and became part of the Creed experience. We could not have accomplished anything without you!"
While perhaps surprising, Creed's breakup is hardly unique. Often a band formed by the best of friends can self-destruct when confronted with the pressure and blinding sheen of success.
"People in bands, at first they're high school or college buddies who just want to get out there and rock," Tremonti said. "But after it gets to a bigger level, it turns into a business where people have to make decisions about their careers, and people see things differently. You start to see your friends as somebody who might hold you back from something that you really want to do. Their opinions might not be your opinions, and a friendly disagreement might turn into a career-ending decision."
Whether you loved them or hated them, Creed had always inspired strong sentiments in anyone who heard their music. Tremonti and Phillips just want the band's contributions to be recognized.
"When Creed came out on the radio seven years ago, there was a lot of poppy radio music," Tremonti said. "I think 'My Own Prison' was the first song [in a long time] with a serious tone and a message behind it. After that, a lot of radio programmers started programming more serious-sounding rock and roll, and I think that's what I'm most proud of. Creed perhaps opened the doors for some other bands who may have had a message."
"Even if you loved us or hated us," Phillips emphasized, "remember us."
— Joe D'Angelo, with additional reporting by John Norris
After nearly 10 years together and more than 24 million albums sold, Creed have decided to put an end to their string of multiplatinum records and chart-topping singles. The choice was made months ago, when guitarist Mark Tremonti and singer Scott Stapp reconvened after a yearlong hiatus and ran into problems.
"We had gotten together two or three times and nothing happened," Tremonti explained. "We got our instruments and played, but neither of us was taking it seriously. We were just running in circles. There wasn't a vibe like on the previous records. It felt very joblike. We knew that it would take us years to get a record out."
The trouble wasn't that the collaborative couple — Tremonti was responsible for the music, Stapp for the lyrics — were clashing creatively. Personal issues, mostly between Stapp and the rest of Creed, caused an irreparable rift that ultimately led to the band's demise.
"Scott and I hadn't been close for a while," Tremonti said, "and things just weren't working out. ... None of us really argued amongst each other. It was always Scott who had the problem."
Stapp declined to be interviewed for this story.
The animosity apparently began to churn two years ago, while Creed were promoting 2001's Weathered on a tour that Tremonti and drummer Scott Phillips described as long and grueling. For starters, to preserve his voice, Stapp sat out soundchecks, which had been where the bandmembers would goof around and playfully bounce new ideas off each other. So Tremonti was forced to germinate those ideas with Phillips and touring bassist Brett Hestla, who had replaced founding member Brian Marshall in 2000, and the collaboration got under Stapp's skin.
Having to postpone several dates because of Stapp's April 2002 car accident (see "Scott Stapp Discusses Accident That Derailed Creed Tour"), and a few more shows later that year due to his bout with laryngitis, only added to tensions in the band. Meanwhile, the other bandmembers got the sense that their singer wasn't as committed as they were, and his attention seemed fractured.
"It's not fun to count on other people when they're not that focused," Tremonti said. "Scott wasn't in the mindset that we were. He wasn't as focused on the current tour. He had 800 things on his mind, and I think that distracted him from what we were doing."
Among the ventures that Stapp was exploring was a clothing line called Screamline and forays into acting.
"He definitely had his plate full, whether it was professional or personal," Phillips said. "He always had the cell phone going," the drummer added, with an eyebrow raised to relay his disgust.
Well aware that something wasn't right in the band's dynamic, Stapp, Phillips and Hestla began talking about their situation, though they didn't figure a permanent split was imminent.
"When every day just seemed to get weirder and weirder, it's natural to start discussing that with the people around you," Phillips said. "There wasn't ever a point where anyone was like, 'All right, I'm done with it.' It was more a question of what exactly is happening. What's going to happen tomorrow night? What's going to happen three months from now?"
The pinnacle of Creed's problems took place in Chicago in December 2002. Whether Stapp was inebriated or simply sick, as he had claimed, his performance was so terrible that some members of the crowd sued the band for sucking. For a band proud of its reputation for exciting and passionate performances, such a show was inexcusable. Some fans even balked at Stapp's heavy-handed Christ-like poses, which he claimed symbolized that he "had some things going on in [his] life," "kind of felt alone" and "didn't think anybody had [his] back at the time" (see "Creed Singer Defends 'Symbolic, Personal Gesture' He Made At 'Drunken' Show").
"My entire family was at that show," Tremonti said, "so I was very irritated. But I forgave Scott for it. I talked to him about it, [but he didn't] offer any kind of explanation. That's probably what bothered me the most. There was no closure on it. It was like, 'Let's keep moving on,' and I was like, 'Well, we've got to address these issues,' but we just never did."
The guitarist wasn't really much help in explaining what caused Stapp's uncharacteristic behavior that night, since their strong friendship, on which the band had been built, had deteriorated.
"We didn't really speak too much, so as for what he did on his personal time, we had no idea," Tremonti said. "We just knew that [over time] he would just slowly act a little more distant and do things that we didn't really approve of. So we really don't know what happened in Chicago, except that it was a low point in a long year."
Following the tour, the band rested for the next year, a move spurred more by Stapp than by his bandmates. According to Tremonti, Stapp's outlook for Creed entailed making an album every couple of years and then touring for only a few months. To the workaholic Tremonti this wasn't acceptable, so he figured he'd vent his creative juices in a side project.
Although the speed-metal-minded Downshifter never got off the ground (Tremonti had envisioned working with Hatebreed's Jamey Jasta and Slipknot's Joey Jordison), just the mere thought that his songwriting partner would apply his talents elsewhere bothered Stapp.
"We kept having [personal] problems, and my side project turned into 'Creed is not working,' " Tremonti said. "And to keep performing, I had to make a decision to move on."
The last time he spoke to Stapp was in February, when the two were still trying to rekindle their creative fires for the follow-up to Weathered. When collaboration and reconciliation proved futile, Tremonti introduced the idea of a world without Creed.
"We just wanted it to be fun," he said. "And it just got to the level where it was so political and there was so much drama that it just drove us crazy and you just can't ... We wanted to do this for the music, and you're not supposed to be in a rock band to be miserable or have to walk on your tiptoes around people."
Tremonti's side project took a more serious turn when he recruited Phillips and Creed's original bassist, Brian Marshall. The trio enlisted singer Myles Kennedy, formerly of the Mayfield Four, and Alter Bridge was born. Since February, the band had been working on its debut album, One Day Remains, at Tremonti's Orlando, Florida, home studio. The disc is due on August 10, with a first single, "Open Your Eyes," expected to surface later this month and a promotional tour of radio stations slated for mid-July.
"I'm more driven now than I've ever been," Tremonti said. "If you've tasted it and been there, you need to get back. Rock and roll, to me, is like a drug. I need to get out there and perform and get the music out there. That's why we've been a band for only five months and we're coming out with a record in another two."
Stapp is working on a solo album with hip-hop producer 7 Aurelius, according to a Wind-Up Records spokesperson. Before that is released, however, he'll contribute a track to an album inspired by the film "The Passion of the Christ," which the label will release August 31 (see "Creed Singer Offers Songs To Mel Gibson For 'The Passion' ").
"Creed was one of the most amazing journeys through music and friendship I am blessed to say I was a part of," the singer expressed in a statement. "I made memories I can never replace. I just want to thank the fans who supported us and became part of the Creed experience. We could not have accomplished anything without you!"
While perhaps surprising, Creed's breakup is hardly unique. Often a band formed by the best of friends can self-destruct when confronted with the pressure and blinding sheen of success.
"People in bands, at first they're high school or college buddies who just want to get out there and rock," Tremonti said. "But after it gets to a bigger level, it turns into a business where people have to make decisions about their careers, and people see things differently. You start to see your friends as somebody who might hold you back from something that you really want to do. Their opinions might not be your opinions, and a friendly disagreement might turn into a career-ending decision."
Whether you loved them or hated them, Creed had always inspired strong sentiments in anyone who heard their music. Tremonti and Phillips just want the band's contributions to be recognized.
"When Creed came out on the radio seven years ago, there was a lot of poppy radio music," Tremonti said. "I think 'My Own Prison' was the first song [in a long time] with a serious tone and a message behind it. After that, a lot of radio programmers started programming more serious-sounding rock and roll, and I think that's what I'm most proud of. Creed perhaps opened the doors for some other bands who may have had a message."
"Even if you loved us or hated us," Phillips emphasized, "remember us."
— Joe D'Angelo, with additional reporting by John Norris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
