- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (09/11)
- Next Post »A La Carte (09/12)
Veneration Gap
- 09/11/06
- 41
A week ago Suzanne Sataline published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Veneration Gap: A Popular Strategy For Church Growth Splits Congregants.” The article examines several examples of churches that have experienced great trial and turmoil as a result of attempting to become Purpose Driven. The article does not seem to be an attempt to prove that Purpose Driven principles are inherently evil or that they always cause conflict. Rather, it seems that Sataline is attempting to show that the transition from traditional to Purpose Driven can be a difficult one and is not always as easy as people may believe.
Through the article she discusses four churches:
Iuka Baptist Church in Mississippi is a Southern Baptist congregation that lost 40 members after voting to throw a deacon off the board for publicly taking a stand against a transition; Valley View Christian Church in Dallas expanded their sanctuary five years ago to accommodate an influx of new members that would follow their decision to adopt the five Purpose Driven principles. About 200 people refused to get on board with the transition and left to form a new church; First Baptist Church of Lakewood in Long Beach, California has seen attendance fall from 700 to 550 after the pastor led the church through a transition about seven years ago; Brookwood Church in Burlington, North Carolina has had attendance fall from 600 to 275 since becoming Purpose Driven.
Sataline mentions an organization called Church Transitions Inc., which exists to help churches move through the transition from traditional to Purpose Driven. She seems to target them as a cause of many of the problems. While it is not directly affiliated with Purpose Driven, Rick Warren does endorse this organization. Warren wrote the foreword to Transitioning, a textbook for the transition written by Dan Southerland who serves as President of Church Transitions. Warren writes, “This is a book to be studied, not just read. To get the most out of it I encourage you to purchase a copy for each of your staff and study it together, one chapter at a time, as many have already done with The Purpose Driven Church. … If you are a pastor or a key leader in an established church—this manual will help you implement the principles of being purpose driven. So go for it!” Here is what Sataline writes about the organization:
Some pastors learn how to make their churches purpose-driven through training workshops. Speakers at Church Transitions Inc., a Waxhaw, N.C., nonprofit that works closely with Mr. Warren’s church, stress that the transition will be rough. At a seminar outside of Austin, Texas, in April, the Revs. Roddy Clyde and Glen Sartain advised 80 audience members to trust very few people with their plans. “All the forces of hell are going to come at you when you wake up that church,” said Mr. Sartain, who has taught the material at Mr. Warren’s Saddleback Church.During a session titled “Dealing with Opposition,” Mr. Clyde recommended that the pastor speak to critical members, then help them leave if they don’t stop objecting. Then when those congregants join a new church, Mr. Clyde instructed, pastors should call their new minister and suggest that the congregants be barred from any leadership role.
“There are moments when you’ve got to play hardball,” said the Rev. Dan Southerland, Church Transitions’ president, in an interview. “You cannot transition a church…and placate every whiny Christian along the way.”
Philip Ryken, pastor Tenth Presybterian Church in Philadelphia, having read this, writes: “While I am sensitive to the difficulties of dealing with whiny Christians, and while I recognize that there are times when Christians need to go separate ways for ministry, I also seem to recall that there are biblical guidelines for dealing with differences in an open, honest, and charitable way.” Surely there are, but the methods outlined in Transitioning are not all that conducive to reconciliation or negotiation. A person is offered only two choices: get with the program or get out.
I found it interesting that Sataline’s article revolves around numbers. She proves that the Purpose Driven method is fallible by citing statistics showing church memberships falling, sometimes drastically. This is largely the same methodology used by Purpose Driven and Church Transitions to measure success. As if to emphasize the concerns of those who believe that the church growth movement is driven by pragmatism, the author’s bio in Transitioning says “Dan Southerland is the pastor/teacher at Flamingo Road Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida—a purpose-driven, contemporary congregation that has grown from 300 in 1989 to over 2,300 today and launched seventeen other churches.” The author’s sole credential is that he has made the Purpose Driven principles work by seeing the requisite numerical growth. For many who are eager to adopt Purpose Driven principles, this is enough.
That there are churches struggling with a transition to Purpose Driven methodology does not surprise me, for I read the textbook to transitioning a couple of years ago. If The Purpose Driven Church is the “what” and “why” of the church growth movement and all things Purpose Driven, Transitioning represents the “how.” “If the thought of switching from a traditional church to a purpose-driven church leaves you with mingled feelings of excitement and fear, good! It means that, as a pastor, you know the incalculable worth of aligning your church with God’s vision…Transitioning is written for you.” (From the back cover). We also learn from the cover that the book will help a pastor and congregation navigate change and attain rewards that far exceed the risk. Essentially, this book is a how-to guide for changing an existing church from program-driven to purpose-driven. It is written by Dan Southerland, but endorsed by Rick Warren who says that Southerland’s church is “one of the most exciting and encouraging examples of transitioning from being program driven to purpose driven.” (From the foreword) In my review I outlined several concerns with the book and the methodology:
First, the principles within this book are steeped in pragmatism. What works is elevated far above what Scripture teaches. If it works, in the author’s view, it must be good. This is, of course, consistent with The Purpose Driven Church which is modeled as much on Peter Drucker as on the Bible.
Second, the author misuses Scripture. The web site for Church Transitions says the model is “Biblical—based on the book of Nehemiah.” In a vain attempt to lend Scriptural credence to the book, the author bases the process of transition on the model of Nehemiah, who led the Israelites in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Many of these parallels are forced and the Scripture simply does not support the conclusions. For example, when discussing the reality and inevitability of opposition, Southerland writes about Sanballat and his opposition to Nehemiah’s work (see Nehemiah chapters 2 and 4). Of course there is vast difference between opposition raised by a hostile unbeliever and a concerned believer! Southerland, though, groups all those who oppose change as Sanballats. In the Church Transitions model there is little room for the concerns of other believers.
Third, the author does away with biblical models of leadership. One of the necessary steps in moving to a Purpose Driven church is to make the church staff led instead of committee/deacon led. Rather than having a plurality of elders, a church should have a vision team which is composed of dreamers and power brokers, so that the church becomes led by those who dream big and those who have the money and power within the church. But what of the biblical qualifications for leadership? What of elders, deacons and proper church government?
Fourth, the churches the author proposes are custom-built to appeal to a very limited element of society. It is not mere chance that the author’s church had the average age of attender fall nearly 20 years over his transition period. The church was custom made to appeal to a certain element of society at the expense of others. Who is building and planting churches designed to appeal to the elderly? This model would deem a church successful that has driven away the elderly and replaced the pews with people in their teens and twenties.
Fifth, there is little consideration given to whether this transition is right or biblical. We are to blindly accept that it is the way to do church and to begin the process, regardless of what other church members may desire. The first step in transition is creating a vision. This teaching about vision is something that is in-line with the teachings of Schuller, Warren, Wilkinson, Blackaby and the New Age - we are to dream a big dream, call it vision, and raise that up as our standard. Decisions are made and programs are accepted or rejected based on their conformity to this vision. Yet this vision is created by a man. He may ascribe it to God and it may be biblical, but it needs to be regarded as a lower standard than the Word of God!
Sixth, the method is brutal in its dealing with opposition. There is no latitude given for those who oppose the change, even if they object on biblical grounds. Criticism is viewed as inevitable and unfortunate, but ultimately an attack on God Himself. The pastor is cautioned to remain on track with the change and not allow opposers to derail the process.
I wrote these six concerns after reading the book and evaluating Southerland’s methodology and his supposed biblical support for it. It seems that Sataline’s proves these concerns to be valid, for all of them are illustrated in her article. While Purpose Driven principles may seem innocuous, wise pastors and leaders will count the cost before dedicating themselves to them.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (41)
it really is a complicated, complex issue when you think about it. picturing that conference in Austin gave me a wide range of thoughts. I could picture those pastors discussing real concerns about lethargy and neglect in America’s churches that need to be addressed, and I could easily veiw them as sincerely trying to reform “dead” churches. On the other hand, I could just as easily picture these men with a pet project of theirs, talking about how to implement it in a business-like way, using words like “synergy” and “modernize” and “growth model”, all with completely unbiblical connotations.hmmmm!!!! hard to even begin to understand it. there ARE “dead” churches where nobody’s seen Christian love or mercy in 20 years and everything is just empty and people barely even talk to each other but just go out of habit, and boy if you try to introduce ANY kind of new thing you’ll meet with more whinging than Napa Valley, and the services are drab repitition. but whose to say your average church-growth, seeker-friendly church with their vibrant atmosphere, chai mocha-lattes and powerpoint worship slides are any less “dead”??
Purpose Driven is what first brought me to Challies. I have always had mixed feelings, but have come to see the harm that Purpose Driven can do. While I still maintain that much of the harm comes in the form of undiscerning leadership in our local churches, it is evident that the root of the problem is the ideology espoused in all that is Purpose Driven. It is beyond understanding how pastors and other leaders have taken up the Purpose Driven banner and have sought to completely revamp and change the way church is done. My church went through the 40 Days of Purpose and I even taught a class during these 40 days, being careful to reword or eliminate altogether that with which disagreed with the Bible. I feel it was a benefit to our people when presented this way, but what is not of benefit is simply trying to change the way you “do” church, mimicking a church that runs 10,000+ simply for numbers’ sake. Purpose Driven, therefore, seems to be as much of an indictment on the state of the at-large leadership of God’s church as it is on Rick Warren and Saddleback. We need a revival of discernment….although a revival sent from God would surely improve our discernment immensely!
Hi Tim,
Great analysis and conclusion. I also read this article a few days ago and was also dismayed by the brutal un-Christ like manner that Rev. Dan Southerland, Church Transitions’ president, and Mr. Clyde advised to deal with opposition.
“There are moments when you’ve got to play hardball,” said the Rev. Dan Southerland, Church Transitions’ president, in an interview. “You cannot transition a church…and placate every whiny Christian along the way.”
To me that was very telling.
{{{Candleman}}}
I have always felt uncomfortable with the Purpose Driven approach. It is not that I don’t think congregations should be focused on the purpose Christ has given in the Great Commission, but rather the pragmatic approach to doing so and the “keep looking for the paraphrase verse that says what you want it to” approach to the use of Scripture. The above article points out that some of the discomfort I felt is justified. For me the book that speaks much more to me is Outgrowing the Ingrown Church. He recounts a story about a church that had done all the surveys and demographic studies and picked the perfect location for their new building. He had no doubt that that would make that particular congregation grow from a small one to a large one, but at the same time he noticed that he, “did not see clear evidence that Christ was actively present in their midst, transforming lives and opening hearts to one another.” He focused on that while he was preaching as a visiting pastor there and real transformation started. Yet, the statement that followed that was telling for me, and should call those who use numbers as the mark of a healthy congregation,
“Church growth that is not inspired by faith in Christ’s power to transform lives in dangerous. Ultimately, I believe, it will prove to be a displeasing to the Head of the church as numerical stagnation. The congregation that is secularized and add secularized members to its rolls is simply confirming itself in its indifference to the will of the Lord.”
maybe our churches would be better off with less members and more Christians.
A dead church can look like a really lively one, for sure. Today what we need is for people to be on fire for the gospel, but what we see are just more and more programs, promotions, politics, and purpose.
Too many preachers in the pulpit and people in the pews are confusing anointing with adrenaline, and the busyness of man with the business of God. It’s good to be active, and organized, and lively, but it’s a must to be alive!
Do you want to know what an alive church is?
A church that is alive is a church where people are dying!
Dying to self that is…
yeah! we definitely do not have a self-help gospel! how could you tell purpose-driven from any number of satanic self-help books out there if it didn’t mention the words “Church”, “Jesus”, “God”, “Ministry”, “Prayer”… etc.
Interesting post. I hadn’t really looked at the Purpose-Driven model in this light before. I like the general idea that we need to really look at why we are doing something as opposed to just doing something because “we’ve always done it” (add in the words “this way” if/where appropriate ;-)
I like the general idea of having a purpose for what we’re doing and examining that purpose, but not with a lot of the examples above. I definitely disagree that a church has to eliminate members just to move “forward”. Sometimes that may be necessary if someone is clearly contentious without having a Godly reason for it, but often it’s just differences of opinion. I do think that we should inspect what we’re doing regularly and ensure that we’re not doing it just to do it. I know that we eliminated some programs a while ago because they didn’t really do anything other than show that we were there. On the negative side, we never actually replaced or revamped that activity to give it a good purpose. I really wish we had because it was a great outreach opportunity if we ever were to take advantage of it. That’s really all that needed to be done in the first place - just add a little to the event to point people to God, even if in a subtle manner.
I guess I’ve really misunderstood what a purpose-driven church is really about if this article is a good representation. If that’s the case, I’d agree that we really do need more discernment when leading the church. Vision is important, but it’s not all about numbers. (See the www.churchmarketingsucks.com site for some discussions on church growth - interesting posts and discussion all ‘round.)
-Pete Schott
It really bothers me that pastors can sometimes be more identifiable by an attitude of self-righteous arrogance towards the people in their church than by sacrificial love. Maybe if they dedicated such energy to praying for the people under their care, churches would be growing in more ways than numerically. I’m not trying to be cynical or critical. I believe that many pastors are loving and shepherding in a Chirst-like way and they are not receiving their rewards in the here and now but have something much better to look forward to. They may not be impressive to us much of the time, but God is very pleased with them and their churches. Frankly, I have never had much use for the so-called ‘church growth stuff’. Why do we so easily turn to anything and everything but God? Is is so difficult to humble ourselves and openly declare our utter dependence on the Spirit of God to work in our lives and churches? Well actually, it is difficult…at least for me. But with God all things are possible.
When you remove the congregation’s right to question the actions of leadership (excluding the normal whiners), especially on biblical grounds, you’re not many steps away from starting a cult.
I went through the 40 Days program, and had some initial bad things to say about it, but overall, I thought it was pretty excellent.
CONS:- I hate the first statement - “it is NOT about you.” Unlike the rest of the book, this statement is not humanistic at all, but unbalanced - it reinforces all of the “you are a filthy no-good sinner” junk we’ve heard from fundies all of our lives, rather than emphasizing a healthy view of self, as discussed in David Seamands excellent book, Putting Away Childish Things.
- He often quotes The Message, which I find to be a pathetic excuse for scripture. I have no problem with paraphrases, but the Message is so far from the actual scriptures, it seems counterproductive.
- He is excessively wordy, and it is definitely aimed at a lowest common denominator. Some subjects (like the coverage of self mentioned above) deserve just a little more detail and refinement - some ideas are so generalized, without parameters or balance, they give lots of room for misunderstanding.
PROS:
- The hierarchy of how our life is designed first for God, second for discipleship, third for community, etc, is helpful, and biblical, I think. It’s clear
- It has a biblical hierarchy AND is programattic. Busy people like programs, and they are helpful. It also helps organize the information into something digestible and implementable.
- His Intentional Discipleship stuff for churches (you know, the 101, 201, 301, and 401 classes) are excellent.
Warren does skirt dangerously close to unbiblical humanism, and doesn’t refer to sin a lot, which causes some serious division. Perhaps he could be more clear. However, the abuses of bible thumpers over the generations makes him understandably leery of taking this approach because it has been so tainted by the condemning attitudes of self-righteous bibilcists.
Seeker,
It is interesting that you criticize a particular web site for using labels, but on your site you use the label ‘neo fundies’, and in your post above you use the following: ‘fundies’ and ‘self-righteous bibilcists(sic)’, and ‘bible thumpers’. Why the double standard?
I also have some questions for you concerning some of the terminology you used above, and I hope you will be willing to expound on what you posted above.
1. What do you consider to be a ‘healthy view of self’ which you describe above as being the opposite of what you have heard from ‘fundies’ all your life? Along this same vein, what place does a person’s sin have in the gospel?
2. How does Warren’s PDL and 40 Days have a ‘biblical hierarchy’? How are programs helpful, and what is the biblical support that they should be used because ‘busy people’ like them?
3. In what way is Warren’s intentional discipleship ‘stuff for churches’ excellent?
4. Can you provide some examples of Warren’s skirting dangerously close to ‘unbiblical humanism’?
5. I am unclear about your comment that Warren doesn’t refer to sin a lot…in which you appear to be implying that this is a negative. Yet, early on in your post, you call the reference to a sinner’s dirty, filthy condition as ‘junk’. Can you explain this?
6. What do you consider to be ‘condemning attitudes of self-righteous bibilcists (sic)’?
I hate the first statement - “it is NOT about you.” Unlike the rest of the book, this statement is not humanistic at all, but unbalanced
That was one of the few redeeming qualities of the book. Unfortunately, the rest of the book is all about you (or self).
Amen to Blake’s comments above. But remember the Parable of the wheat & the tares. It has been my experience that “tares” are in every local body. They certainly make true worship more difficult for me.
Rick Warren and his ‘Purpose Driven’ franchise is one of the most insidious things to infect the church in many a year. Every time I think it can’t get worse it does. It seems each book written to promote this concept is worse than the last. This one, as described here, takes the cake!
These people aparently believe they are God’s messengers sent to save the church and that anyone who dares oppose them is of the devil. To go around behind someone and actually try to undermine their ministry at another church because they dared to disagree with you, what an ego trip these PD folks must be on!
BTW, the parable of the Wheat and the Tares is not about problem people in the church. If we look at Jesus’ explanation of the parable we see that the field is ‘the world’ (Matthew 13:38) not the church. This parable is about the fact that the saved and the lost will exist side by side in the world until the end of time when Christ returns. Its not a commentary on the makeup of the local church.
PDL uses the Hegelian dialectic process for getting rid of dissenters. This process was employed by Peter Drucker, Aspen Institute and other such people or groups interested in transforming people into a socialistic society. It is subtle in its approach and I wonder if Rick Warren even realizes that he is a leading proponent in transforming parts of the Church into a possible socialistic, state approved powerless Church.
I wonder if Rick Warren even realizes that he is a leading proponent in transforming parts of the Church into a possible socialistic, state approved powerless Church.
Candy,I doubt he even cares, as he unashamedly uses the demon spirit-guide Philemon material of Carl Jung in his SHAPE profiling for determining where a person should be serving in the church.
That is the one that has always baffled me…all these churches who utilize Warren’s SHAPE program to help people determine their giftedness for ministry are using material initially developed by a man who claims to have gotten it from his demon spirit-guide named Philemon.
Talk about a lack of discernment in the church today!!!
wait, Warren uses a model developed by a mystic channeling a demon spirit guide? how could this be possible? I’d like to see some evidence of that
- I hate the first statement - “it is NOT about you.” Unlike the rest of the book, this statement is not humanistic at all, but unbalanced - it reinforces all of the “you are a filthy no-good sinner” junk we’ve heard from fundies all of our lives, rather than emphasizing a healthy view of self, as discussed in David Seamands excellent book, Putting Away Childish Things.
As Brian mentioned, Warren’s opening statement is spot-on theologically. In the context of our relationship with God, the focus of the relationship is God, not ourselves. We are not talking about a relationship of equals, so balance doesn’t even come into the discussion.
wait, Warren uses a model developed by a mystic channeling a demon spirit guide? how could this be possible? I’d like to see some evidence of that
Blake,I know it sounds pretty amazing, but it is true. I have done more research than just this one link, but this one is a good place to start:http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm
1. Brian, those are good questions, but too many to answer in a comment. I’ll try to get to them in a post on my site, and i’ll mention it here.
2. One of the signs of hyper-fundamentalism is a distrust and rejection of psychology as if it was all demonic. You can see it in some of the responses here.
3. Biblical View of SelfPlease read my essay Is Man Basically Good or Evil?, and you will see why I call such statements as the one below testimony that fundies have rejected a biblical view of self.
Warren’s opening statement is spot-on theologically.
I highly recommend reading David Seamands’ book “Putting Away Childish Things” which has an excellent chapter called “Childish views of self and self-denial.”
But a high-level summary would be:- a healthy self-love is not selfish, it’s good stewardship. Jesus assumes such healthy self-love in such scriptures as “love your neighbor as you love yourself” and Paul does the same in saying “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it”. We must treasure our own spirit, soul, and body, like we would a child that God has given to us - we nurture their talents, interests, and gifts with love for them as a person, and we also guide them towards God and repentance and the new birth.
- most fundies only emphasize our fallenness, and not our beatuty (made in God’s image). For them though we can see the grandeur of God in nature, it is totally corrupted in mankind. This leads them to reject the natural personality, interests, and gifts that are in each person via CREATION, not via the new birth. We are not just who we are in CHRIST, we must also value the person whom God made in CREATION.
- a lot of people suffer from self-hatred, that in part must be dealt with by replacing their view of self, not just with “God’s view”, but with an honest and healthy view, not one that is all bad (there is nothing good in me), or all good (false self-image). We are both sinful and loved. The “I’ that is loved is whom Christ died to save. I matter to God, I am not just some blank slate for Christ.
Self denial and focus on God will not alone heal a person who hates themselves. Yes, experiencing the love of God is critical, as well as re-educating the mind and conscience with the law that gives liberty, but we also need to embrace ourselves and love ourselves just like we are asked to love others.
I will work on answering the well-posed questions here, although I have limited time and may not be able to pull the PDL off of the shelf.
Seeker,
I appreciate the graciousness and even-handedness with which you have approached this discussion. It speaks to God working in you (you will no doubt agree!).
But I am stumped as to how you square your statement “I matter to God, I am not just some blank slate for Christ” with scriptures such as Romans 3:10-12:
10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;11 no one understands;no one seeks for God.12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;no one does good,not even one.”
And Romans 7:18-20:
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Other Scripture clearly points to the operative reality that anything ‘good’ we do is done in Christ. IMO, the ‘blank slate’ statement is just a mite too dismissive of God’s work in our lives through the finished work of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ).
Pax.
Thanks. I would answer this way.
The first passage you quote deals with righteousness, not the value of the person. The second passage is dealing with indwelling sin, that is, in the flesh. His clarification of “that is, in my flesh,” in part, I believe, is provided so that we DON’T misinterpret this as a denial of the value of the person, or the self. Because there is also something “good” in me - not just Christ, but teh created person who is made in the image of God and reflects his handiwork - my gifts, my talents, my spirit.
Neither of these passages are dealing with the value of the created person - the self whom God loves. Did you read my essay on the Goodness/Evilness of man linked above? I tried to communicate this point in that article.
Fundamentalism ignores our need for a healthy self-regard, one that leads not to selfishness, but good stewardship of the spirit, soul, and body. As one author put it, “love yourself, give yourself.”
And again, a healthy self-regard is one that is realistic, admitting our failings and sinfulness, but also acknowledging our gifts and value. The false self-love is more like self-esteem, where we need to feel good about ourselves and DON’T want to see our faults. But the fundamentalist opposite of this is that we must view ourselves only or mainly as poisoned sinners in whom “no good dwells” - without the “that is, in my flesh” clarification.
OK, it is 2:30AM and my wife is nicely asking me to shut it down ;)
Please also see my new post, The Rise of Neo-fundamentalism
Sorry, one more thing. The “blank slate” comment refers to the practice of ignoring or nullifying the self. When I wanted healing for my self-hatred and self-rejection issues, fundies kept telling me, “don’t keep looking for your self, your identity is who you are in CHRIST.” The problem with this is that it is only half true - the CREATED me needed validation, discovery, and acceptance, rather than dismissal as “unimportant” in leue of my new self in Christ.
This “self-denial” was really self-anihillation, an unhealthy practice shared with some Buddhist sects - it is unbiblical and damaging. Christ died to save and renew ME, not to replace me with some personality that has nothing to do with the created self. The metaphor I gave above is one that is dear to me - we should treat our own spirit, soul, and body the way we would a new child that we are given. We would cherish it, dote on it, develop it, and also shape it’s character by pointing it to God and righteousness.
Modern Christianity’s unbiblical self-denial which eschews any focus on healing the self, the unique person, but rather, only focuses on God and Christ sounds pious and correct, but it is inhuman, unbalanced, and antithetical to the love of God. I am not advocating selfishness or a discarding of the doctrine of original sin and redemption. I believe that I am preaching the balanced doctrine of the nature of man and the ways of God in healing and saving the person. Of course, my ideas could always use tuning ;)
Seeker, I have a real hard time accepting anything you say after reading your blog and seeing “Slice and other watchblog sites” referred to as “sarcastic bastards”. If you had used the term as it means-I might have been able to get past the abusive language, but you used it strictly as an abusive term. You completely lost all credibilty for anything you may now say by using such epithets.
Seeker…one question that I would like you to answer here and not in some other essay or not from someone else’s words:
What ‘healthy self-regard’ can an individual have who is-separate from Christ-excluded form the commonwealth of Israel-a stranger to the convenants of promise-without God in the world
Paul says that person is ‘without hope’. Can that person truly have a healthy regard for self OUTSIDE of Christ?
Blake,I know it sounds pretty amazing, but it is true. I have done more research than just this one link, but this one is a good place to start:http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm
Of course, you all realize that sacredsandwich is a satirical site. At least, I hope you all realize that……. :-)
mikbry24,
Yes, the sacredsandwich site is satirical…but the information it provides on Warren and Carl Jung on the page I linked to is NOT part of the satire of what they normally do on that web site.
Mike, not everything at the Sacred Sandwich is satire. That particular article is completely serious.
Normally, though, the Sacred Sandwich would seem like an odd place to start any reserch.
David,
I agree completely with you on that one. I never would have thought to find such serious information there.
This is an important issue, but if Christians are going to avoid a lot of unnecessary upset, we need to understand that there’s an inevitable tension between ministry to the internal needs of a congregation and ministry to the world around us.
I’ve discussed this on my blog RealCurrents. This is some important background information that anyone debating the issue ought to know about.
In a nutshell, both sides are right, but we have to strike a balance, and church leaders need to take time to educate members and communicate a vision rather than just rush to make changes, because it’s a major paradigm shift for most American Christians.
Mike, not everything at the Sacred Sandwich is satire. That particular article is completely serious.
Well, then it’s really not a very good comparison. Yes, some of the same words are used, but the thoughts compared between Warren and Jung that are supposed to be exactly alike in the slant of that particular page are anything but. Yes, the underlined words are similar, but the thought expressed in most cases is not the same at all.
For instance Warren, according to the page states:WARREN JUNG BIBLE”God made introverts and extroverts… He made some people ‘thinkers’ and others ‘feelers.’” (PDL, p. 245)
“Your personality will affect how and where you use your spiritual gifts and abilities. For instance, two people may have the same gift of evangelism, but if one is introverted and other is extroverted, that gift will be expressed in different ways.” (PDL, p. 245)
“Ask yourself questions:… Am I more introverted or extroverted? Am I more a thinker or a feeler?” (PDL, pp.251-252)
And Jung, according to the page states:”Two types (of typical differences in human psychology) especially become clear to me; I have termed them the introverted and the extraverted types.” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6 par. 1)
“I have found from experience that the basic psychological functions, this is, functions which are genuinely as well as essentially different from other functions, prove to be thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these functions habitually predominates, a corresponding type results. I therefore distinguish a thinking, a feeling, a sensation, and an intuitive type. Each of these types may moreover be either introverted or extraverted…” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6)
Is it your contention that introverts and extroverts do not exist?
The page then goes on to “represent” the Biblical point of view:Warren is explicitly using the specific terminology of the psychological typology theory originally conceived by Carl Jung. Despite the claims of his supporters, Warren has clearly based his Personality Theory (the “P” in his SHAPE teaching) on the unbiblical foundation of Jungian psychology.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 1 Cor 2:12-13
Certainly, one can use the terms extrovert and introvert without invoking the spirit of Carl Jung, and to deny that some people would be labeled as “outgoing” and some people would be labeled as “homebodies” is to deny reality. In addition, the verse used from Colossians 2:8 is used as a proof text to make it seem as though the ideas of introversion and extroversion have no Biblical merit. Whereas, other areas tell us we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Are we all made exactly alike? What I see here is yet another effort to make Warren out to be a little worse than he really is and to paint him in the worst light possible. Again, to deny that different types of personalities exist has no basis in fact or reality. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that God makes us and shapes us with different personalities, talents and interests and uses those for His glory as he leads us down that road we call Sanctification. I Corinthians 12:12-31 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way. ESV
It is not unreasonable to glean from this passage of Scripture that there would be differences in personality archetypes as well, is it? To try to make a “Direct Link” to Carl Jung ranks up there with the “Direct Link” to Robert Schuller……Obviously, Warren gets it wrong in a lot of ways, and some of what he says even borders on unbiblical, but there is no use in making things look to be worse than they really are.
mikbry,
There is no indication in the passage you cited that hints that God ‘appointed’ the apostles, prophets, pastors & teachers or any other part of the body due to a person’s personailty or archetypes.
I try to imagine if Moses had taken Warren’s SHAPE examination…it would have told him that he was gifted for shepherding animals, but NOT people.
And the examples go on and on and on…
The questionnaire that is used in the Purpose Driven program is straight from the Myers-Briggs exam (and there is one other major one as well that I can’t remember the name of), and these come right from Jung’s work, who claims to have gotten it from his spirit guide, a demon named Philemon.
Scripture says that God’s power is perfected in weakness, NOT in our strengths.
When we are weak, then He is strong.
Can God use my abilities in a certain area for His glory? Absolutely! He gave them to me…but surely we can discover what God has gifted us with apart from this secular and admittedly demonic material.
May I suggest that we instead turn to God and ask Him for wisdom and discernment in these matters?
My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you, Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will discern the fear of the LORD And discover the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding. He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity, Guarding the paths of justice, And He preserves the way of His godly ones. Then you will discern righteousness and justice And equity and every good course.
Proverbs 2:1-9
I don’t disagree with anything you said, Brian. I’m simply stating that to say that people have different “types” of personalities is not anti-biblical. I agree with everything else you said. Simply because Jung had a name for the different personalities doesn’t mean to believe that people actually have them is evil. Again, I’m not going to play the part of Warren apologist, but to simply write off an idea because Jung or anyone else had it is a logical fallacy. Of course we should match everything up to Scripture….I’m not stating otherwise.There is no indication in the passage you cited that hints that God ‘appointed’ the apostles, prophets, pastors & teachers or any other part of the body due to a person’s personailty or archetypes.
And I didn’t say that it did……but neither does the idea that there exists different personalities among humankind oppose anything Scripture says. This is what the webpage implies and it is wrong in doing so.
Simply because Jung had a name for the different personalities doesn’t mean to believe that people actually have them is evil.
It is if you are classifying them based upon those different types, and suggesting areas of ministry based upon those types.
Where does Scripture talk about different personality types and how those different types should govern what one does within the body of Christ?
It doesn’t…..we’re arguing two different things…..
Where does Scripture talk about the internet or posting comments on a blog? It doesn’t, so does that mean it is a sin or evil to do so?
Again, I’m not arguing for Warren’s use of personality types to determine ministry……I’m in total agreement with you on that….However, I’ll ask again, are you stating that there *are no* different personality types? That seems to be the argument on the Sacred Sandwich Website which is obviously not the case, which is the point that I am increasingly failing at making :-)
Where does Scripture talk about the internet or posting comments on a blog? It doesn’t, so does that mean it is a sin or evil to do so?
Yes, if by doing so one violates the imperatives/precepts of Scripture.
I’ll ask again, are you stating that there *are no* different personality types?
In Scripture? No, there aren’t. Sure, people have different personalities, but why must they be categorized? What is the purpose (no pun intended) of grouping people into various categories?
I am saying that God, in His Word, does not break down His children into different personailty types, and I believe that to do so while encouraging specific areas of service based on a particular secular (non-biblical) personality type is to nullify the work of the Holy Spirit in the distribution of various gifts to the body of Christ as He seems fit.
All I see in Scripture are descriptions (or declarations), of what a child of God is and does and how he/she acts and behaves: fruit of the Spirit, beatitudes, etc.
I can find no basis for personality types in Scripture for determining areas of service for the Christian, can you?
Finally, to answer your question, I would say that personality types exist, but only in the mind of secular psychology. To use them within the body of Christ is, in my opinion, to sin against the Holy Spirit.
Yes, if by doing so one violates the imperatives/precepts of Scripture.
Yes, but that’s the question, isn’t it? The act of writing or posting to a blog is not dealt with in scripture, so to argue that it is *wrong* from Scripture is not an argument one should make. However, I can step over the line, past the act of posting, and state or convey something that would be contrary to scripture. Similarly, to state, “There exist different types of personalities” is not an anti-Biblical stance, but to then state that we should base our respective life ministry on our individual personality would be anti-Scriptural. Warren states, “Your personality will affect how and where you use your spiritual gifts and abilities.” He doesn’t say “Your personality will determine how and where you use your spiritual gifts and abilities.” The Sacred Sandwich Site implies that he does in its “Biblical Response.”In Scripture? No, there aren’t.
Yes, that’s correct….and exactly my point….Sure, people have different personalities, but why must they be categorized?
I don’t think they must be categorized, but neither is there any prohibition, is there? I would ask, “Why mustn’t they?” One would wonder, conceding that *different* personalities exist, how you would recognize them without some sort of categorizing.What is the purpose (no pun intended) of grouping people into various categories?
I can think of several reasons, especially when dealing with people in the ministry on a personal level, or in the workplace if you manage people, perhaps as a parent when dealing with your children, recognizing that they have different personalities and will respond differently depending on how they are being treated. I think it is wise to know who you are dealing with, and what *type* of personality they have. As we look at the Apostle Paul it is easy to see how he dealt differently with different people groups and personalities. Thought they are not *named* per se, it would be wrong to prohibit the naming or categorization on the basis of Scripture, since it would be an argument from silence. I fail to see how it is “unscriptural” to recognize a difference among people and personalities. Now, to attribute one’s position in ministry being dictated to your personality (which Warren is doing) is a whole other ball of wax with which I disagree, which, consequently, puts me in agreement with you. It sounds like we’re arguing, but really, I don’t disagree with you at all, unless you are stating that these different personalities don’t exist. The page at Sacred Sandwich crosses the line in making it seem Anti-Christian and/or Anti-Scripture to say there are different personalities, when it would be an argument from silence.
Mike,
I think we are mostly in agreement here, and that we are probably talking past each other on a lot of this stuff.
With respect to your question, I would say ‘Yes’, there ARE different personalities, and I might - might - even go so far as to say there are different ‘types’. But, I would also say that there are probably just about as many different ‘types’ as there are people in the world.
I have yet to find someone who fits perfectly and neatly into one specific secularly described personality type, as the Purpose Driven SHAPE program (or any of the other secular tests) tries to do.
Thanks for the discussion…I have enjoyed it.
That is probably true. I honestly don’t know a lot about the SHAPE program, and, from past experience with Warren’s other programs I don’t have a lot of interest in finding out. It is ironic how a book that starts with “It’s not about you” ends up, in the end, being all about you. I wasn’t saying this a year ago….but realized it after being shown and studying how Warren’s thoughts match up (or not, as the case may be) with Scripture. His ideas do leave much to be desired, but not EVERYTHING is bad. I, too, have appreciated the conversation. Let’s prayerfully allow God to do His own SHAPING of us as we die to self daily, and “press toward the mark” as God continues His process of sanctification in our walk with Him!