Just Stuff

CNN interviewed John MacArthur for his take on Rick Warren's Purpose Driven philosophy.  Apparently the interview and the final edited story don't resemble one another.  Another good reason not to grant interviews to the MSM.  Here is a disclaimer from MacArthur's website.  UPDATE:  The Jolly Blogger weighs in on the topic (one good ping deserves another).

Al Mohler on George F. Keenan.  George who?  Read to find out.

Mark Roberts is blogging prolifically about Mary & Protestantism.

La Shawn Barber is a blogger you should know.  You'll be seeing her on MSNBC...wait...no you won't.  Who watches MSNBC?

The Jolly Blogger reminds us that Scripture honors age not youth.  So why do so many churches allow their philosophy of ministry to be youth-driven?

Through a Glass Darkly on Terri Schiavo and civil disobedience.

Comments

[David]

In re: John MacArthur v. Rick Warren:

While I did have reservations about the whole concept behind Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life, I did take away many good ideas from it and found it to be, in the aggregate, very edifying. But John MacArthur obviously has trouble putting things on his shoulder so to speak and simply mining out the nuggets and discarding the chafe.

I suspect MacArthur is on a quest and it goes beyond Warren’s book. Is it truly that outrageous that thousands (perhaps millions) are coming to Christ or reaffirming their faith as a result of the so-called seeker-sensitive movement? Most people who are flocking to these seeker-sensitive churches either have no experience with religion or grew up in traditional religious households and have some memories of “religious abuse” (if we define that term broadly as anything less than nurturing treatment by a religious authority – including personal and doctrinal). Okay, so some churches need to focus less on numbers and more on fostering mature growth in a believer. But a person cannot grow as a Christian until they first become a Christian.

MacArthur is, I have no doubt, a serious and devout man of God who loves Jesus and his fellowman (and I would be shocked if indeed he harbored even an ounce of personal animus towards Warren). Frankly, however, when I look at MacArthur’s web site, I see a leadership composed mostly of older white males wearing dark suits and white shirts; fine for an IBM salesman in the 1960s, but what about them is relevant to, say, your average apathetic teenager weaned on MTV and video games or the disaffected dot.com yuppie who discovered that money doesn’t buy a meaningful existence? I, too, am grieved and sometimes disgusted by our shallow culture. And maybe Warren’s book is a bit shallow to many serious theologians. But if so, Warren did “meet them where they were at”!

MacArthur’s handling of the CNN interview evinces not only an incredible naïveté with regard to press relations (I mean, if one goes on CNN or any other mainstream network as an evangelical Christian, one should at least anticipate the possibility of an ambush), but how out of touch he might be with those who really are seeking. Give Warren credit at least for reaching out in an empathetic and sensitive manner to those who look for some real answers to their lives. It isn’t just “secular analysts” who find MacArthur as strident and a bit petty in his criticism of Warren; many Christians are kinda gettin’ that vibe, too, dude.

I am not a relativist by any stretch, but nobody -- except God -- has a monopoly on truth (not even Rick Warren or John MacArthur).

Yours in Him,

David Curtin

[jon]

David,

Thanks for taking the time to drop by and comment; don't be a stranger. When we planted New Hope Bible Church we used a small portion of Warren's "Purpose Driven Church" as a model. Though there were parts of his book with which we disagreed, we found his break down of Acts 2:42-47 to be very helpful. We used the five e's (evangelism, edification, encouragement, equipping, and exaltation) as a set of goals for our church family to pursue, with the glory of God as central. These are not altogether different from other expressions of church goals, just nicely packaged.

We have not attempted to embrace "The Purpose Driven Life" as a whole, though a couple of our small groups have read it together and found it to be helpful. I am leary of fads and quick studies that promise, even though subtley, some kind of quick spiritual growth. So I rejoice that souls are brought to Christ by many different means; however, I am concerned for the long term character development of Christ's Church. I am far more attracted to the concept of a "long obedience in the same direction," than "forty days of purpose."

I hesitate to be critical of MacArthur's motives and methods. Surely he must answer to God and his own conscience for that. That being said, we are foolish to think we will ever get a fair hearing in the MSM.

[Scott M]

The definition of "seekers" that everyone seems to assume kind of bothers me. I would actually put myself in the category of seeker, but I'm perhaps not seeking the same thing that the next "seeker" is seeking. (That's a mouthful!) I grew up in fundamentalism, was saved at an early age, and learned all the "right" answers to all the right questions. But what was drilled into my brain didn't really resonate in my heart or make its way into application in my day to day life. So in the past few years, I've embarked on a journey to seek truth at a more basic scriptural level (not just parroting the oft-repeated rhetoric), and to find and join together with a group of Christians that are authentic, growing and vibrant. In a sense, I AM looking for a church that is seeker-sensitive. By this, I mean that I am looking for a group that is genuine, authentic, transparent, hospitable, loving, humble and friendly.

I think that these same characteristics appeal to most seekers, no matter what they are seeking. This is not to say that I am not interested in correct doctrine or application of Scripture. But truth presented carefully and without needless offense is still Truth. You can either beat someone over the head with it, or present it in a loving, open way. I'm sure in the spectrum of "seekers" there is a plethora of different personality types, backgrounds, goals and levels of spiritual maturity. Let's not stereotype them and summarily dismiss them. Instead, let's be equally careful in our treatment of them as we are with our treatment of the Truth. As Pastor Jon always says, we need to have a desire of gain, not a fear of loss. If we desire gain in both our collective relationship with God and our interactions with others, I think we'll remain sensitive to both. It's not necessary to sacrifice one for the other.

One last thing on the topic of "seekers"... doesn't the term itself imply that the person wants to know Truth? Often, I think churches equate seekers with the biblical idea of people who want to come into the fold and cause division. True seekers are not really looking to promote an agenda... they are looking for answers. I'm not suggesting we be sensitive or welcoming to those who seek to divide and destroy. But let's be discerning and be sensitive to those who really do seek answers.

Also, let's not forget that babes in Christ are just that... babies. They must first learn to desire the sincere milk of the Word before graduating to the meat. I don't like the idea of dismissing basic, simple teaching just because it doesn't delve deep enough or go into every bit of theological minutia. What is the first thing that a new believer ought to learn? The five points of Calvinism? The various theories of soteriology? Dispensationalism? No. He must first be taught to love God and his neighbor as himself. He must be taught to live out the fruits of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith. He must learn to trust and rely on God. Let's not overly criticize people like Warren who present simple, basic wisdom. After all, is that not what the book of Proverbs is... wise practical observations about skillful living? If Warren's book is too juvenile for your tastes, don't read it. But don't assume that it is useless to everyone else. That's my take on this debate.

[Scott M]

One thing I forgot to mention... I think there is a vast difference between being seeker-sensitive and being seeker-driven. I'm not advocating the latter.

[jon]

Scott,

If this is your definition of seeker-sensitive then I am all for it: "I am looking for a group that is genuine, authentic, transparent, hospitable, loving, humble and friendly."

And you are correct to make the distinction with "seeker-driven." Much of Warren's philosophy is seeker-driven, and it remains to be seen if it will stand the test of time. Has he built a significant theological foundation that will sustain Christian maturity over the long haul?

You sound like you are working to make your calling and election sure--an altogether biblical process dressed in the vocabulary of seeking. There is no doubt there are many who are not regenerated, who nevertheless are graced by God's common grace, and seek Truth to the degree God stirs them. We must be sensitive to the work of God in the hearts of others. But as you already know, we should not tailor the Truth to fit the seeker; God must shape the seeker to fit the Truth.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Jon,

I noticed something in the MacArthur site that I wondered about... In the article, it refers to "John MacArthur said this..." speaking of him in the third person. Then later, referring back to him they say "John believes this..." Does it strike you as an odd way to write? I know that MacArthur is referred to by his people as Pastor John, which I really don't have a problem with at all. (Most of my people just call me Don.) But it seems that the writing style on the MacArthur site is just ... different.

Is it just me, or did that strike you as odd also?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Paula]

This is truly interesting reading. The comments section becomes as much a part of the article as the original. As I read (and I read the Jollyblogger's take on it too), I couldn't help but be reminded of scripture: "Seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you." "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
Warren's book got a reading from me, but I certainly didn't study it; after the first nine days, I sensed a contradiction. He says up front it's not about me (I knew that), but then instructs me in ways to put together a plan of sorts to create a purpose in my life. (or am I getting the jist of his book wrong?)
I just don't see defining my purpose as MY job. From what I've read in the Bible, God already determined it. And like Jon says, God builds my character and I learn to live out His purposes through a "long obedience in the same direction," glorifying God as I walk a narrow road.
Thanks for all the good interchange. Thoughtful and challenging to me.
Pg

[jon]

Don,

I went back and read the PR release again. They should be consistent in how they refer to JM. The writer moves back and forth between his first name and his first+last name. That strikes me as just poorly written, but perhaps some of our journalism folks would have an opinion about that.

Paula,

Thanks for leaving your thoughts! You have identified one of the blessings/cursings of blogging--the comments thread takes on a life of its own. Most of the time, that's a good thing. I watched Warren being interviewed last night on Larry King. I was not overly impressed, but this is the first time I have seen him in person, and I do not know the man at all. As I've hinted at above and you have picked up on in your comments, if I am going to read a contemporary author, I would rather read Eugene Peterson than Rick Warren any day of the week. My .02.

[Scott M]

According to the Associated Press Stylebook, religious titles should be used only in the initial reference to the person in an article. The pastor's or clergy member's last name should be used in subsequent references. For example...

"The Rev. Dr. John MacArthur recently criticized author Rick Warren's bestseller The Purpose Driven Life in a CNN interview. MacArthur said he finds inconsistencies between Warren's self-fulfillment philosophy and the Bible's emphasis on self-denial."

However, as you probably know, AP style does not necessarily control most of what is posted to the Web. There are very few quality controls in place, because basically any yahoo with a computer can have a Web site, blog, message board, etc. The most important thing is probably just that you have consistency within your own site or forum. If you find it more respectful to always use the title "Pastor" before the pastor's last name... then be consistent in that usage. But don't switch back and forth between "Pastor", "Pastor John", "Pastor MacArthur", "John", and "MacArthur".

Perhaps Bet could comment on this. She, after-all, taught me most of what I know about journalistic writing.

[jon]

Scott,

You said, "...any yahoo with a computer can have a web site...." That would be me.

[Scott M]

You said it... not me. I wasn't implying that you're a yahoo. I was thinking of other examples, which I will not name. :-)

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Scott...

Well, the site was MacArthur's site, I guess their own style is whatever they want. It just sounds odd. Is that because we are so accustomed to the AP Press style (and similar styles)?

Just curious.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Bet]

Well, how nice to see someone (especially someone who sat in one of my journalism classes) cite AP style. :)

You're exactly right in your comments on AP style, Scott. And you're right too that you'll find all sorts of variations on the web. Consistency within a document or a website or a blog is about the best we can hope for I would say. But the very fact that a discrepancy is noticeable and distracting is a good reason for using some form of consistent style. And my favorite is, of course, AP. :)

[jon]

Your hard work paying off, Bet!