Pine Ridge Church
By Brian on Oct 24, 2007
We’ve been going to Pine Ridge Church for about a month and a half, and looking back it feels like the whole time has been leading up to last Sunday and a message called I Hate Christians. That’s the message I’ve been waiting to hear in church for years. There are a lot of reasons we feel at home at Pine Ridge (and some things we don’t like, but I’ll save those for later), and most of them are related to the I Hate Christians message.
- Pine Ridge isn’t “positive and encouraging” or “safe for the whole family”, but they strongly point to Jesus who will positively lift us up from the crap we throw ourselves into, and their kids’ stuff is fun & multimedia heavy (but so is Nickelodean, so there needs to be more) and also pretty effectively shows the kids about what it means to follow Jesus (that’s the more that’s needed, and Ben kills it - the dude is great
- Pine Ridge is probably more comfortable for unreligious people than for religious people, which is how Jesus was. My fear going into Pine Ridge is that it would be just like a dozen other churches in town, but 10% more (a little edgier, a little more casual, a little more this or that). It really is different than any other church in town, and that’s sold me more than anything else - because they have the stones to take the chance on really being different.
- Pine Ridge doesn’t get stuck in the weeds of doctrinal minutiae, but it comes strong with the core of who Jesus is and what he does
- Pine Ridge doesn’t harangue against them for being gay or having abortions or sinning every day in every way - it comes strong against us who claim Jesus for being greedy and looking at porn and being selfish and hypocritical and sinning every day in every way. But it doesn’t end with beating us up (and Tadd’s too soft to beat people up much anyway, no matter how puffed up he is about his fantasy football
prowess luck) - it goes on to getting pulled up out of the quagmire we’re in and living in rhythm with God and God’s grace.
Go check out Sunday’s message, I Hate Christians, in the podcast section at pineridgechurch.com. Let me know if you think it’s good or if it’s lame.
This Sunday is I Hate My Past. 10am at Smith Elementary (map) in Burlington. Stick around after the gathering for the first Pine Ridge Grillin & Chillin with free food for everyone and inflatables for the kids.
Wow…
Jerry | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
It is shocking to me that someone can claim to be a Christian and to hate Christians simultaneously. I’m not sure there could be a better example of hypocrisy.
You’re points one through four could not be a more man-centered focus of church than God-centered.
For anyone to think that the reason God became man, and died a bloody death on the cross, was so that we could be positively lifted “up from the crap we throw ourselves into,” - there couldn’t be a better demonstration of someone who doesn’t desire to “get stuck in the weeks of doctrinal minutiae.” We reap what we sow.
It is truly sad that false impersonations of the church of Jesus Christ have disintegrated so deep into the world and the culture that this seems like a good thing to those who call themselves “Christians.”
Come quickly Lord Jesus, come quickly.
Tony | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
I guess Tony hasn’t bothered to listen to the message…how shocked he would be with how incredible wrong he is! The actual message has nothing to do with hating other Christians, but being the typical “Christian” he decided to jump on his high-horse and throw out the almighty hypocrisy! ewwww! Anyways, typical Christians never cease to amaze me!
Tadd Grandstaff | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
Tadd,
My comments were based on Brian’s description of things, not on the actual message. I am sure I would have other, and different, comments after hearing the message.
That wasn’t the intent of my comments here, but rather, to respond to Brian’s words, not the message’s content.
I do not know if you are a follower of this blog historically, but my comments also come with the historical knowledge of recommendations by the author of this blog, for books about men hating going to church, and other pro-emergent/anti-biblical concepts. It was from such context my comments of this post are submerged.
Perhaps I’ll comment on the message’s content at another time.
tr
Tony | Nov 5, 2007 | Reply
Tadd,
As I said before, my initial comments were a criticism of Brian’s words, not on your message content, because I had not listened to it. For the sake of fairness, and so I could comment on the message content, I did go and listen to this message, as well as the following one.
First of all, let me be clear in that I agree wholeheartedly with your admonition of Christians being genuine, authentic, and non-hypocritical. I think that is a good word for all of us. And yes, I did “get” your play on words with the title of the message about “Hating Christians,” and the “shock-jock” preaching you did in the beginning, only then, applying it to yourself in the end. I “got” it. Although it was cute, I thought it lacked the cleverness you intended, but we can disagree on that. My criticism is not over style and preferences of those sorts.
I think it did reveal several things that really concerned me, and it is those things that are the substance of my response here, after having listened to the messages.
Although you did eventually, and what seemed genuinely, apply those criticisms to yourself, it was clear that you possess a disdain for other Christians with whom you have disagreements. I would say, that as brothers in Christ, we are called to love, not hate, other Christians, regardless of our disagreements. You and I may disagree vehemently over issues, but I would never claim to hate you. The Scripture I quoted from 1 John in my original comments to Brian demonstrate this truth clearly. True Christians love one another, regardless of their differences. I would strongly exhort you to remove the “hate” language when talking about those with whom you disagree. Saying you would like to “rip off his stinking face” is hardly sharing the love of Christ.
Moreover, many of the things you listed as what you hate about Christians, are actually straw-man arguments. Things you probably “think” other Christians say and believe, but which actually don’t take place. Now I agree with you on the issues you mentioned regarding KJV Only and TV preachers. They are clearly wrong-headed in their teachings and the wrong teachings should be exposed, but in love, not by saying we hate them.
But the other things you mentioned, like saying churches don’t allow people with tattoos (by the way, I have one and my church knows it, and I am in good fellowship), or “hate homosexuals,” are simply straw-man arguments. You put words in people’s mouths and generalize when you say things like, “we talk about how we hate homosexuals.” Who talks like that? I don’t know Christians who use that kind of language. You are incorrectly crediting words and attitudes on others that you have made up, not ones they actually say and do. I would challenge you to find one church in Alamance County that would claim those ridiculous things you rail against. For one to claim that homosexuality is sin is not the same as hating someone who practices the sin. Sure there are fringe groups like the crazy Phelps family who protest soldier’s funerals, but most people know that isn’t “Christian,” or typical of “Christianity.” Perhaps you grew up in a church that condemned jeans, and with people who don’t know their neighbors, but you incorrectly project your experiences on the masses of other Christians who do not fall in those categories. You are ignorantly attacking boogiemen.
Your generalizations leave a lot to be desired. When you condemn street preachers for their wrong messages, you imply that all street preachers’ messages are of the kind you paint. This isn’t so. You do this with each category you condemn, lumping everyone into the tiny pendulum-swung corner you are lambasting.
Furthermore, I could not get over what appeared to be a genuine hostility in your voice towards people with whom you disagree. You talked about loving unbelievers, which we should do, but where is the love for your Christian brothers you disagree with (Rom 14)?
You railed about being judgmental, but this message was quite possibly the most judgmental speech I have ever heard! This makes me wonder if you are confused about Biblical judgments (Matt 7:15-23), which we should do, verses self-righteous judgment, which Christ condemned (Matt 7:1-5).
You spent the first seven minutes pointing out what was wrong with churches today, only to turn around and condemn Christians who “point out what is wrong with churches today.” Hello?
You hollered about inclusivity, but then boasted proudly that as pastor you would “kick them out of this church so fast their heads would spin!” What? Are you serious? Clearly you lack knowledge of the role of a pastor and the role of the church in church discipline scenarios.
You condemningly applied that statement to those who would point out other’s sins, but previously you boasted that your church “calls people out.” Which is it? Do you call people out or do you kick out people who point out sin? Do you have a Biblical view of either end of the position? Has 1 Corinthians 5 or Matt 18 ever caught your attention in regards to how we should first remove the plank from our own eye, but THEN help others remove their plank too, by pointing out sin and dealing with it in Christian love (Eph 4:15)? Your contradicting words leaves one to wonder if you are for or against true and proper Biblical church discipline, or if you are only railing against its abuse.
You lauded against hypocrisy but clearly failed to see the hypocrisy in these stances. There were moments where you sounded exactly like what you had condemned, just moments before.
You criticized those who preach expositional style, going through the Bible text explaining its meaning; but you didn’t even mention a single verse of Scripture until almost 20 minutes into the message, and then only a few proof-texts. I don’t mean to sound ugly Tadd, but this speech was hardly even a sermon. It sounded more like the opinions of Tadd than the Word of God. There were several moments where you talked about the Bible being the Word of God and containing the answers to life’s problems, to which I agree. But if you believe that, why didn’t you use more of God’s Words and less of your own? Why not give the people the Words of Life and explain their meanings so they can apply them instead of just going on and on with your opinions?
Finally Tadd, what concerned me the most, was the lack of the gospel, and the lack of Christ in the messages. You properly proclaimed the “that’s” but never the “how’s.” You properly proclaimed the Bible was God’s Word, but never preached it. You properly claimed that Christ could take away burdens, but never said how (through repentance and faith).
My heart literally sunk when you properly told the people that Eph 4:22 says to “put off” the former way of life, but then you ignored verse 24, which exhorts them to also “put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” You properly identified many problems, but gave either wrong solutions, or no solutions at all.
I’m not judging your motive Tadd because if one thing is for sure, you seemed sincere. But your messages were very incomplete. Not once did you explain that the reason for Christ’s death was because we are at enmity with God through wicked works (Eph 2:1-3) and that His righteous judgment for sin has eternal consequences (Rom 2:5-16), but that Christ paid those consequences for us already on the cross! Where was the cross? Where was Christ?
Tadd, I agree with your admonishing Christians to be genuine and authentic, and to not be hypocritical. But friend, I would really exhort you to preach the word and not let your pendulum swing too far in the other direction. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water in order to appeal to the culture. Certainly there are properly identified problems with “Christianity” that you have identified, but the way you are addressing them, does indeed seem to be “hateful” and unloving, and not as Christ would have us respond. These messages seem to be more man-centered and how to improve the individual self, rather than an emphasis on glorifying God by obedience to His Word for what He did on the cross.
I’m sure you’ll disagree, but perhaps you can find it in you to not hate me in the process.
Sincerely,
tr
Tony | Nov 6, 2007 | Reply
Interestingly enough, our local newspaper chose to cover this blog post as an example in a news story yesterday. It can be read at:
http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/church_7677___article.html/web_people.html
Ironically however, the example that this dialog was used for was incorrect, and I would like to make that point for any Times News readers that come here for follow up. The newspaper said,
When this discussion began, I purposely said, so that it would not be misunderstood, that this discussion was NOT about tradition and style, but about substance and message. I’m not a big fan of quoting myself, but in this instance, for clarity, I think it is necessary:
Notice I agreed with Tadd about his “authentic” admonition and that it was Biblical, and my criticism was NOT about style and preferences.
So for the sake of the newspaper reporter, and for those who come here from that article, I will reemphasize that this discussion was specifically NOT about tradition, substance, or style of worship and services.
This discussion is fundamentally, over a difference in what the purpose church is for, Biblically speaking. In the Bible, unbelievers are evangelized, not invited to the gathering of believers for wooing. Don’t hear what I am not saying again, which is, I am not saying unbelievers are not welcome in churches, but that the church is not primarily and fundamentally for their enjoyment and happiness. Therefore, it is not “Christian” to have a church that changes the function of church to one that is focused on non-Christians, rather than on Christian’s worship of God. A heavy emphasis on evangelism is fine, but evangelism is the task of the body of Christ, outside of the church service, not changing the function of the service for that endeavor specifically.
We should be welcoming and nice to unbelievers who come to our churches, and we should of course share the gospel message with them. But nowhere in Scripture are we commanded or given an example of changing the purpose of the church to be geared around the preferences of unbelievers so they will come, or continue to come.
If people want chairs instead of pews, and guitars instead of organs, and coffee instead of stain glass, none of those issues are spoken of in Scripture and are fine changes (although some will debate those anyway). Those things are style and tradition, and NOT the substance of this debate.
However, changing the Word of God to the opinions of man, the preaching of the Word to the “conversations” of people, and the focus towards man rather than towards God, well, those ARE substantive issues the Bible speaks clearly to and should not be changed.
In the New Testament, the “gathering of the saints” is for the proclamation of the Word of God, the edification of the saints, fellowship of believers, and administering of baptism and communion, etc.; all which are activities to be done by and for believers as worship to God, not for unbelievers to be happy.
If unbelievers come, they should be welcomed not excluded from attending, but in the midst of these things that believers do (and unbelievers don’t do), there should be an element of uncomfortably for unbelievers.
Unbelievers should be welcomed and given the gospel, but they should not have the church service turned upside down in order to appeal to their “felt-needs.” This is a cultural trend that is destroying the message and purpose of the church. In many congregations this can be seen as “church” is being geared away from the worship of God and being God focused, and toward the idolatries of man, and man-focused.
The issue being debated here is regarding those who wish to change the purpose of church and the message of the gospel, not the style and substance of the service.
Tony Rose | Nov 18, 2007 | Reply
For those that are interested in what I am discussing here from a Biblical point of view, I recommend the following two books:
“Fools Gold” by John MacArthur
And
“Nine Marks Of A Healthy Church” by Mark Dever
Tony Rose | Nov 18, 2007 | Reply
I guess I am a bit confused Tony… The mission of every Church should be simple and straight forward: REACH THE LOST. I have no idea why anything else should matter. If making an enviroment that makes unbelievers more comfortable than what is wrong with that?
Methods will change (I mean how many times in Scripture do you read about Mary playing the pipe organ, or Ester holding a bake sale?). But in the end it all comes down to one thing. Again that is reaching the lost and telling them about Jesus Christ, what he did for us and how we can receive Him and have eternal life.
Honestly your views or someone elses view over what is Godly doesn’t mean a hill of beans. When the worship style pulls in unbelievers and changes their lives and more importantly changes their eternal lives, then who cares what anyone from a tradtional point of view thinks. When you’ve seen change in people like I have in the past 11 weeks, I know what we are doing is right. My brother in law who would never step foot in a church is now saved and on freakin point for telling his rough and tumble friends about Christ than say all you will about what you think. But when it comes down to it, it’s not about you (or me) and your thoughts (or mine), it’s about reaching those lost, disconnested and missing eternal life.
Your thoughts and desires for tradtions are great (for you). Here is the deal, you reach those the way you see fit, we’ll do it the way we do. Don’t forget, Christ did allot of head knockin over the fact that the religous folks in his day where more worried about tradition than reaching the world. All in all we’re all on the same team. If someone decides to hand over their life to Christ, it is not a win for our Church it is a win for the Community of Christ.
I’ll take a step back as well, and figure that you’ll say it’s not about style (and your right) but it’s about the Gospel. And honestly your right, but brother, in most new fangle Churches I’ve been in, they preached as hard and heavy through the Word. Did they stand up and read word for word for 2 hours? No way, number one; even the pastor would be asleep. Number two, you can read word for word at home, but in the Church there is a need and a desire from many who don’t spend countless hours in the Word to have it explained and how to relate it to everyday life. Why? Cause that is where they live, everday life.
Again, boil it all down, and it comes back to one thing. Reaching a lost world for Christ. When style and substance is more important than that, we have a problem.
Ross Horton | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply
Ross,
No offense intended brother, but when I read your words, I couldn’t help but wonder if you read what I wrote. It seems as if you are responding to things I didn’t say. In arguing points I didn’t say, you put words and ideas in my mouth that I do not believe. For example,
You said,
I never said anything to which this would be a disagreement. Also, I’m shocked that you would say,
…when my words were precisely as follows,
How much clearer do I need to be that I am NOT talking about traditions?
I’m almost reluctant to answer the questions you asked because of how you’ve responded here, hearing what I haven’t said, and not what I have. I will give an honest attempt though, because I detect your sincerity in asking. Bear with me and I’ll work though this with you so you can at least understand my points.
You started by saying,
As I said before, I am not against evangelism, but a big proponent of it. I think we need to clarify some terms, like “church” and “church service,” because I think sometimes we use those terms interchangeably when they shouldn’t be.
The mission of individuals is to reach the lost. Jesus gave the Great Commission to followers. All believers should be sharing their faith all the time. Jesus said, “Go and make disciples.” The “Go” can be translated “as you are going,” meaning we are always missionaries, not just when we go on trips or move overseas.
The fact that this is our mission does not mean that this is the purpose of the “gathering of the saints” or what we may call, “the church service,” or quite frankly, the body of Christ as a gathering community.
Now again, don’t hear what I am not saying. I am not saying we should not invite unbelievers, make them feel welcome, or even seek them out…but that fundamentally, that is not the Biblical purpose of the gathering of the saints.
You ask honestly,
If what you mean is that we have the temperature comfortable, or we let them sit where they can hear, or we don’t do things to purposefully offend them, then there is nothing wrong with that. We should even go out of our way to make them feel welcomed. I am not speaking against those things.
But however, if you mean that we should change the music to music they like (for the motive of pleasing them over the motive of pleasing God), dress the way they want to dress, or avoid speaking the truths of Scripture so as not to offend, then there is something wrong with that.
The point here is not to say that traditional issues like pews and ties need to be accepted by unbelievers. If they show up in jeans we should not make them feel uncomfortable. THAT is NOT the issue. I am not trying to say that in regards to these things that traditional ways are better than contemporary ways. People should be able to wear what they want without being pointed out or ostracized in any way.
But if it is our motive to appeal to fleshly desires in order to get them to come, then our motives are wrong, and so are theirs. Unbelievers do not need somewhere to go where it is all about them and designed to make them feel good, they need the gospel. It is not the Christian’s goal to make a place where they feel comfortable so they’ll come there, it is the Christian’s goal to give them the gospel.
Also Ross, when you talk about nothing else mattering, I would argue against the exclusivity of that statement. Your words exactly were,
Evangelism is important, but so is the growth of Christians, the fellowship of believers, the worship of God, etc. If these things are in the category of “nothing else that matters,” that would be incorrect. They matter as well. That is one of the problems with seeker-sensitive churches that focus on pleasing unbelievers, they do not have much if any focus on these equally important matters. Ironically, I’ve blogged about this very thing being recognized by Bill Hybel, the founder of this movement:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/a-shocking-confession-from-willow-creek-community-church-leaders/
I have said nothing to indicate that I am asserting one preference over another as far as “methods” are concerned. I have gone hard out of my way to explain that it is NOT about pipe organs. The one thing is reaching the lost and telling them about Jesus, but we don’t have to revamp the church to appeal to the fleshly desires of unbelievers in order to give them the message. Tell them the gospel, and if God is working in their life they will be born again, and then they will desire the Word of God. Then, whether or not their church has guitars or pipe organs will be incidental to them.
You said,
I am not sure what you meant by this sentence. God’s view of what is Godly does mean a hill of beans, but that isn’t really what I was talking about. I have not asserted any method or mechanism of ministry as Godly or ungodly. You say this like I am a proponent of “organs over drums,” when it is the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Ross, brother, look at these words you used and see if you can spot the theology in them:
Wow, you reveal a lot in that statement. When the “worship style” pulls in unbelievers and changes their lives? Are you serious? A worship style might attract someone to a location, but it is God, specifically through the Gospel, that changes lives.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you meant, that a particular type of worship style will attract unbelievers to a church where they hear the gospel and get saved, I understand your point. I do however disagree with the philosophy from several different angles.
First of all, the Bible speaks nothing of unbelievers stumbling around looking for God and only needing somewhere they feel comfortable to go to so they can hear the message. The Bible says that the unconverted person is an enemy of God through wicked works, and is running from God. As unbelievers, our problem is not that we love God and just can’t find a place to worship Him, as we desire. Our problem is that we love sin and hate anything to do with God. This is a fundamental misunderstanding in evangelicalism today.
Secondly, your comment of “who cares what anyone from a traditional point of view things,” reveals to me that you have bought into the philosophy that the issues being discussed is just a division of how we “do church” in different cultural arenas and it is all preference based. That is not the case. The issue is that how we “do church” reveals our theology and our view of salvation. This isn’t a matter of “traditionalist think we need organs” vs “we think we need to have guitars to attract the guitar loving unbelievers.” The matter is, who is responsible for salvation, us or God?
The Bible says that before we are born again we are spiritually dead, and that God is 100% responsible for the change of heart. When we think we have to do things to “woo” people, through their preferences, to a church, and tell them the gospel a certain way, or DO anything, we reveal that we think that WE have something to do with the conversion process. We don’t. God uses us, but the work is all His.
In the Bible Ross, the church is specifically for the gathering of the saints, believers, those who are already born-again. Not that unbelievers aren’t welcome, but that the primary purpose and function of the gathering is not for the unbelievers. The saints gather for fellowship, edification through the teaching and reading of the Word, baptism, communion, worship, prayer etc. These are issues for believers, not unbelievers. You do not find anywhere in Scripture these things being done in the “gathering” for the purpose of unbelievers or for the conversion of unbelievers.
The church is to “go” witness to people, give them the gospel message, then God changes their hearts and they get saved, and then they come to the gathering as a believer, desiring the things that go on there, rather than desiring organs or guitars.
I am not saying that unbelievers should be shunned or excluded, nor am I saying that we should not give the gospel message in church for those who are present. Cultural realities demonstrate that unbelievers are present in the congregations and they should hear the gospel then too. What I am saying is that this is not the purpose of the gathering of the saints and we should not design or change our churches as if this was the primary purpose. It isn’t.
You continue,
Ross this is pragmatism. Our experience is not our authority of what is right or wrong, the Scriptures are. I do not desire to challenge the authenticity of change that may or may not be going on there. Joel Osteen sees change by the thousands, but he is not preaching the Biblical gospel.
I haven’t listened to all 11 weeks of Pine Ridge, but I have listened to 3 of them. In the ones I have listened to, the Biblical gospel has not been given, the Scriptures are flippantly referred to, and the preaching is about the speaker and the church, not about Christ. I can’t speak to the other 8 weeks, but these 3 are probably indicative of the same.
I’m happy to hear about your brother-in-law and the change in his life. I would never challenge that and pray for his growth. I think that God can work in people’s lives in any arena, but the fact that someone changes or that God uses something, doesn’t necessarily endorse the method.
For example, if a method of folding parachutes that is 100% effective, but takes a really long time, is challenged by a more efficient method that works only 30% of the time, what is our attitude on that? We don’t say that it is quicker and works most of the time so we’ll use it. No, the fact that some people land safely doesn’t mean we endorse the method.
Likewise, if a church has an unbiblical approach of evangelism and someone gets saved, it doesn’t endorse the unbiblical method. We owe it to God to do as His Word says, leaving the results to Him.
You continue,
Again I am not an apologist for traditions, but pardon me for seeing this statement as a bit snarky. This isn’t a postmodern preference “your way vs. my way” issue. The Bible defines very carefully what the gospel is, and what the church is, and we don’t have the permission to stray from what God has said these things are.
Again Ross, where have you read that I am worried over or promoting tradition? I’ve said over and over that that is not the issue. The issue is: (1) What is the gospel, and (2) What is church for?
Jesus did knock heads over those who put tradition over truth. But the issue for him was truth. In fact, what this seeker-sensitive/emergent thing is all about, is asserting traditions over truth, and is precisely what Jesus refuted.
There is no difference in the error of one who claims we have to have organs over guitars, than there is over the error made by the one who claims we need guitars over organs. Both are asserting traditions as relative issues. The latter is just emphasizing contemporary traditions and the former is emphasizing older ones. Both are nonsense. The issue is what is the gospel and what is the church of Christ for?
On this we definitely agree brother! I would however not word conversion as someone deciding “to hand over their life to Christ,” but rather, God changing someone’s heart and them receiving Christ. Theologically speak I am not splitting hairs Ross. There is a big difference us “accepting Christ” vs. Him “accepting us. The big difference is, “what is the gospel?”
The gospel is that we are sinners and lost, not able to do anything to save ourselves. It isn’t that we are just so loveable that God can’t help but loving us. It is that despite the fact that God hates sin infinitely, Christ died for us anyway, despite our sin, so we could be reconciled to God. It isn’t that Jesus is roaming around out there waiting for us to “accept Him into our lives.” He is the means in which we are reconciled to God, and as sinners we need to recognize that He is the only propitiation for our sins and receive His forgiveness. God accepts us, because of the blood of Christ; we don’t accept Him.
Then why have you claimed over and over that I’ve been asserting style as the issue? You are right, it is about the Gospel, and that is exactly what I am saying! I’m glad we agree on that. I’m not sure why you want to state our agreements as disagreements.
Not sure what “fangle” means
but I think I get your point here. Of course I am not a proponent of reading the Word for two hours from the pulpit. But that is a straw-man argument Ross, as I don’t know churches that do that. Sometimes I get the view that those who are railing against historical churches have an idea of what they are rebelling against, but that it has no basis in reality. Just like above when I was explaining to Tadd – what he was preaching against, only exists in his mind. Most churches don’t do the things he was slamming.
The Word should be read and explained. That is preaching. The sermon should be reading the Word and explaining what it means. And of course, it should be taught how that applies to life. That is preaching. With all due respect Ross, this is not what I heard from Tadd on the iPod. He talked about himself mostly with a few Bible verses sprinkled in. That isn’t expositing the Word. I won’t reiterate my critique of the sermons as that is above and you can scroll up and read them. I am not an advocate of dry reading as you describe. But I am advocating the Word being central to what is going on in the church body and service.
Churches that focus on making unbelievers happy remove the exposition of God’s Word because it doesn’t make them happy. They have a misunderstanding of what church is for. Churches that focus on God keep the Word central, because that is what it all about. The Bible prescribes the latter and refutes the former. We should all be warned and emphasize God’s Word and minimize man’s opinions.
In closing you said,
That is a very pithy way of saying exactly what I have been trying to explain, and it shocks me that you think this is different from what I have been saying.
Reaching the lost is the mission of all Christians. Preaching the Word, edifying the saints, and having believers worship God is the focus of the church. When the focus is on pleasing the unbeliever instead of preaching the Word, we have a bigger problem.
Ross I’d love to talk with you offline if you’d prefer. I am sure we could help one another in our mutual understandings, in Christian love of course. Let’s do lunch again ok?
If you disagree with what I am saying, I’d love for you to explain where I am wrong. If you do so, I’d appreciate Biblical support for your explanations. A good place to start is that I would love for you to explain what your understand is of:
1. What is the gospel? And
2. What is the purpose of church?
tr
Tony Rose | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply
Dude! Did you even work today? Shoot I had to pee twice while I read through this…
Let’s do lunch… Should be interesting
Ross Horton | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply
LOL. I do most of my writing at night, and I type faster than I think
Let me know your schedule. Would love to do lunch.
Have a blessed Thanksgiving!
tr
Tony Rose | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
you guys rock. keep bringing it. somebody needs to dictate your lunch conversation.
Vince Powell | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply
That’s where you come in Vince! You can join us if you want.
Tony Rose | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
I listened to several minutes of this guy’s sermon. OK, some of the things he says are true about Christians; he hates their judgmentalism, criticalness, finger pointing etc. Then literally does exactly what he “hates” about Christians, he judges them, criticizes them, shows an unloving attitude and promotes division in the body of Christ. He does what other Emergents do, talks about what is wrong with the church and then does precisely what he has just put-down. I find this a very immature kind of Christianity, kind of adolescent and openly critical of previous generations. I know when I was young, I thought I was cool and knew how to fix what was wrong with the church, but I had enough sense and maturity to keep it to myself or share my opinions to a few of my fellow immature friends, but these guys are in your face and shrill about their “hate” of the church. I find this adversarial attitude very unhealthy for the body of Christ and hope the excesses of this movement will soon cycle out and a more mature and kinder leadership emerges in the Emergent Church .
craig | Nov 28, 2007 | Reply
Your words ring very true Craig and describe much of my points. Last night I was listening to Paul Washer being interviewed on CrossTalk about his youth Reality Check Conference by Anchored In Truth (http://www.anchoredintruth.org/).
In that interview, he said the following, which I thought rang very consistent with what has been said here.
Very true words, and something that WillowCreek has recently discovered to be experientially true.
Tony Rose | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply
For folks following this dialog and are unfamiliar or critical of the points I have made, I would like to recommend listening to the first segment of this radio show:
http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2007/11/22/november-22-2007-hour-1/
In this segment, Todd Friel plays a segment of preaching from the “Elevation Church.” The Way Of The Master describes this segment with the phrase:
“Talk about angry. What is wrong with this preacher’s tirade?”
This guy sounds very similar to Tadd’s “I Hate Christians” sermon, and I believe it is because they are both making the same hermeneutical error regarding the gospel and church; Biblically.
If you are interested in further understanding this growing problem within “evangelical Christianity,” give it a listen.
Tony Rose | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
There was a great post over on 9Marks blog that puts this in a pithy manner:
relevant vs. distinct
from 9 Marks Blog by Jonathan Leeman
http://blog.9marks.org/2007/11/relevant-vs-dis.html
Dever had some good comments on being relevant versus being distinct in a Baptist Press article yesterday morning. A couple of key points:
“I would like to suggest that the most fundamental problem in the church is not that we are not relevant enough in relation to the world, but that the church is not distinct enough from the world. Our churches must reflect the character of God,” said Dever.
“Church leaders should channel their energy toward maintaining purity in the church instead of spending great amounts of time and ministry on relating to the culture,” Dever said.
“The problem with the seeker-sensitive model, emerging church model and even the traditional model that say, ‘Get as many people into a room as possible and share the Gospel with them,’ is that they view success in light of visible fruit,” he said. “All three of these approaches say, ‘Change your techniques and let’s get some numbers.’
“Instead of being directed by [visible] success, we should be directed by faithfulness. We should say, ‘If the Lord doesn’t like our product, we will change the product.’ We shouldn’t take the idea that if we don’t have X number of conversions in our church, then we must be doing something wrong. I am glad Jeremiah didn’t think that. And I am glad that Jesus Christ didn’t think that. Let us remember that we are following the One who was crucified as a revolutionary.”
Tony Rose | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the friendly and cordial lunch today Ross. Enjoyed seeing you again.
Blessings,
tr
Tony Rose | Dec 7, 2007 | Reply