RIGHT TO THE CHIN

Bill, that was a great, great entry. I heard about that purpose driven stuff on the local news, and read a tiny bit about it online, but I never had the time to dig into it like you did, and I really appreciate it.

Seriously though, this is just one more dang, American, Individualist, Consumerist, Give-Me-Lots-of-Money, and Jesus likes all these kinda things thing. Lets just without thinking make our pop-culture ideals our "Christian ideals." Disturbing.

I own an SUV because Jesus says I should.

Thanks. I know I'll probably get beat up for the post, but I'd rather get beat up by people by trying to please God than get beat up by God by trying to please people.

Turns out I agree with most of the points you make here, Bill. I'm fairly 'anti-huge congregations' myself. The whole phenomenon is a little troubling and has started to reak of high fashion. I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's a book out there (it might be what you cited here) that examined either Saddleback or Willow Creek and all the problems they found with it. That being said, though...

When I read through the book I didn't think much about Rick GoodPastor or his eerily large congregation. The actual content of the book is great stuff and if you can seperate that from the rest, it's a good read to get you focused on what christians should be doing. There's alot of scripture used, too.

But I do agree with your points. I know some people who won't read Max Lucado books or ever listen to Billy Graham speak because of a certain belief they hold. That's fine, but just because we have specific problems with a person doesn't mean their message must be wrong.

I think fondly of you every time I pass a '40 Days' sign on the road, and that's pretty frequently these days. Surely you could adapt your 'Chattanooga mayor's race' sketch to the 40 days concept? Maybe have some chattabloggers race it out? With members of house churches, Central Giga-Baptist, and everywhere in-between, I think we'd have a pretty even field.

Good take on the whole "purpose driven" thing.

Back when I was in highschool, the church that I grew up in went mega-church on us, and it was one of the most nauseating things I have ever seen. First, we started hearing all sorts of church growth slogans worked into the church newsletter (slogans that came courtesy of Saddleback and Willow Creek churches), and then things that those two churches did started getting worked into our service. The church had always been what we called "Bapticostal," in that the doctrine was solidly Southern Baptist, but the worship was much more along the Pentacostal vein. So, it wasn't that they changed what we were singing, but the service became emotionally manipulative, and at the same time, the doctrinal content of the sermons started flying out the window, so that they all turned into, "come to Jesus, he'll make all your problems go away."

It's weird, because when we went back to that church several years later when they had their anniversary celebration, it was like an entirely different church than the one we had left. I felt like I was at a concert where everybody was dancing around to the music all around me, but something wasn't there anymore, and it all seemed like one big emotionally manipultive show.

How about "It Takes a Village to Raise Chicken Soup for the Purpose-Driven (all rights reserved)Idiot's Guide to Cliff's Notes"

But seriously, folks...

I go to a local "contemporary" church. We don't have people beating down our doors; we don't break attendance records. Yes, the music is contemporary. Yes, the dress is casual. Yes, we meet in a gym and the sermons are punctuated by Power Point.

Given a choice between a church with conservative doctrine and liberal methodology, or a church with liberal doctrine and conservative methodology, I'll opt for the former. Our doctrine is conservative. We beilieve the Bible.

Our pastor founded the church out of a yearning to minister to and reach people who are largely ignored by typical churches -- poor people and freaks. Our theory is that the Bible applies to all times and all cultures. There are many different ways to worship, and each is effective with a particular group of people.

Some people respond to the huge church with the big steeple where everybody dresses up, sings 300 year-old songs, prays with a bunch of thees and thous, and shuns guitar music. Some people respond to the type of evangelism that involves knocking on doors and passing out tracts.

Others, though, don't. They are turned off by this approach for any number of reasons. They will, however, respond to a more relaxed setting to which they are invited by their friend (someone with whom they have a personal relationship) who exemplifies Christianity in his everyday life.

God made everything. Why? To be used to worship, glorify, and do His work. That includes contemporary music, gyms, Power Point and casual clothing.

Different churches offer different options for modes of worship. That's OK, as long as everyone's doctrine is sound. To me, screwed-up doctrine involves telling someone they're not "spiritual" because their hair is too long or they wear shorts.

As for the whole "Purpose Driven" thing, I don't know because I haven't read it. It seems to be the current flavor of the month. I'm sure there's some value to it, but when things are effective they become popular and when things are popular they become overcommercialized and when things are overcommercialized they face the ire of people who prefer a more fundamental approach.

"We're supposed o be seperate from the world right? So if something is popular, it's worldly and no longer effective on a Kingdom level."

That seems to be the fallacy that most fundamentalists (not that there's anything wrong with that) fall into.

Good post, Bill. Got some good discussion going.

More comments to earn me less friends:

As far as the "scripture" used in Warren's book:

As I hold it in my hands, Warren uses 15 different translations to piece together his message, and his explanation (page 325) for the usage is SEVERELY flawed.

He says that he has "deliberately used paraphrases in order to help you see God's truth in new, fresh ways."

I'm sorry, Mr. Moron, but has God's truth EVER gotten stale? Are you KIDDING me? You have to be saved to receive the SPIRITUAL knowledge in the Bible. Creative writing doesn't entitle you to the truth of the Gospel.

He also states that "the fact we miss the full impact of familiar Bible verses is NOT because of poor translating, but simply because they have become so familiar!"

Again, WRONG! If this is true, Mr. Borr-ren, then how do explain the fact that we are to "study to show ourselves approved" and hide the Word in our hearts. Certainly, while you study, you might read something twice - something that with repeated reading should become MORE encouraging and serve to ground you MORE in your faith. We are not to read the Bible like just any other book, where repeated reading leads to boredom or disinterest. A saving knowledge of Christ, and guidance through prayer from the Holy Spirit through His Word leads to incomparable spiritual knowledge, joy, peace, and foundation for belief. The Word is all we have, and if it is dull to you, then I don't know what to say...Yes, the Bible (in physical terms) is a book, but once you believe on it, know it, and study it, it becomes part of you. How can that EVER get old?!!!??!!!!!???!!!

Dumbing down scripture (through rampant use of various "translations") to make it more pallatable for the marketplace is not going to lead to anything but Satan.

Spiritual knowledge will not come from the editing power of Mr. Warren, it comes from the Holy Spirit, which last time I checked, could help us read anything - including old, unfashioned versions of the bible.

The modern marketplace is killing the cause of Christ, not helping it. Neither is making excuses for it.

I prefer a more modern translation because it's written in a style that matches the language I speak. If I lived in the year 1611, I would prefer KJV 1611. Since Jesus did not choose to speak in ye olde English, I assume that KJV 1611 is as flawed as any other translation. And I take it on faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, can use any translation to reach people. It's like the mode-of-worship argument. Different translations work for diferent people, as long as they all keep the important content straight.

Also, I don't care what anybody does in their church - as long as it doesn't fly in the face of scripture.

BUT............Church (a gathering of believers) is not supposed to be a place of EARTHLY comfort. If the church (a gathering of believers) believes according to scripture, the Word will convict them or enrage them - spiritually. They're only reason to meet should be spiritual, according to the Word. ANYTHING else is tacked on by MAN. The SPIRITUAL comfort they receive from the Word will replace the whatever earthly comfort the members of the congregation were erroneously emphasizing.

The problem is in most churches is that it it is thought that the lost must be approached in the most comfortably carnal way possible - making sure not offend. But the comfort of the church, nor the followers, save souls. Jesus does. And the longer you take to tell people about him, the greater the chance they will get sick of you. It is up to them to decide, not you or anything you do. Leave it in the Lord's hands, and pray. You are there to spread the Gospel.

The Word is not a game. Sooner or later, you're going to have to say "Without the Lord, you are going to perish. You need to repent of your sins, accept the Lord Jesus as your personal savior, and be cleansed in his forgiving blood of grace if you wish to enter into heaven."

You can only dance around it so long, and, we should have more interest in our reverence for the Lord than being comfortable and enjoying yourself in church. You can dress however you want, yes, but you should WANT to do your best for him. I mean, he DIED for you.

If you wait too long, and a bus hits them, then they're gone...

Community is great. Singing is swell. A church service is dandy. Going out and helping people is fine. But leading the lost to the Lord is the most important thing we should be doing.

No, just because is something is popular doesn't make it bad. But nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that it is going to become popular. If "Purpose-Driven Life" was as biblical as it purports to be, people would have nothing to do with it...

Dan-

You need to do a study on the different Bible versions: Who wrote them, what was omitted/added, Why they written in the first place.

Seems like an obvious tool of Satan, to me. I mean, I think it's safe to say that he knows the Bible more than any of us, and in turn, knows how to best manipulate people by messing with it.

But then, that thought depends on how great or small you measure Satan's influence.

I love my King James Bible. I have been preached to - directly - through it's pages, and I love the language used.

Why must we study Shakespeare - a compartively meaningless author - in old English, but the KJV is wrong/tired/boring/etc? Satan doesn't mess with Shakepeare because it's not important. He messes with the Bible because it is.

I eagerly await "The Purpose-Driven Jew."

What seemed strangest to me about the 40 Days rallies on the news was that most of the people attending looked like they had only a 50-50 shot of living 40 more days. I mean, not to be too snarky, but if you're just getting around to looking for life purpose at age 70, no one's going to accuse you of jumping the gun.

So Bill, I know I'm opening up a big can o-worms with this question, but do you feel the KJV is the only justifiable Biblical translation? I'm no fan of paraphrases myself -- there's too much room to deviate from the scriptural message. (If you want to share the gospel in the parlance of our time, OK, go make a movie or write a novel that will direct folks to the actual words of Scripture.) But I don't have any problem with believers working hard to develop translations that are more faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. No one retranslates Shakespeare because the original manuscript is in English. But the original Biblical manuscript isn't from 1611, it's from even further back, and it's in a language most people can't read today. So I can't see a problem with working together with faithful Brothers and Sisters to develop literal, word-for-word English translations that are closer to the original languages. The ELV does a quality job of this, I think, as has the ASV. But that said, I'm earnestly interested in your opinion on this matter. What distinguishes the KJV as the best (or only proper) Bible for use?

Shakespeare is written the way it is written because it was written (supposedly) by Shakespeare during a time when people spoke that way.

KJV 1611 is written the way it is written because it was translated ans transcribed by scholars and monks during a time when people spoke that way.

Shakespeare is dated. It has worldly historical and literary value.

Scripture is alive. It is timeless. Regardless of language, it applies to all cultures at all times. Why, then, should people feel compelled to only read a translation that is 400 years old?

I know God can use any words He wants to reach people, but lots and lots of people won't even open their hearts to scripture because it is hard to understand when it's written in Olde English. Just like lots of people won't darken the door of a church for the first time because of the formality.

God judges hearts, not physical appearance. Otherwise, I'd never be allowed to be a Christian (semicolon, right parenthesis). All my life, church was a distraction because I had to dress a certain way. The stress involved in ironing, combing, polishing, etc made going to church somewhat of a drudgery.

I do agree that one should not expect to have one's ears tickled by the Word. Seeker-targeted churches do try to encourage people and stress the love of God and the sufficiency of Christ, but their biggest flaw is failure to call out sin. Challenge me with the Word. Unfortunately, most traditional churches don't do it much better.

Possibly, this weekend, I can post more inclusive on the different versions of the Bible. Might not have time to do it today, but I promise I will when I can.

Re Shakespeare: If the words were the only thing being changed in the Bible that would be one thing. But many newer versions drop/add/alter/reinterpret whatever passages they so choose to fit erroneus, preconceived notions of doctrines pushed by a particular preacher, movement, etc. I would rather stick with one version, and conform to its teaching than conform my bible to my world.

Man, these discussions tire me. I knew I shouldn't have posted.

Sorry. I was more curious than anything else.

No apologies necessary. i will address your question soon (when i can look at my notes...lol.) it's just late on a friz-i-day, and i have to go to the bank and the store.

Does this explain why the Raiders suck this year?

good point.

Sorry to dampen the debate with stale humor, but come on, they’re really not good. There may be a connection - according to Mesh’s comments above. The "Purpose folk" and Raiders are really, really old. Sorry, I did it again. Have a great weekend.

They gave me the book free at an event before the whole thing kicked off. I don't think Warren is in it for the money. Local Christian bookstores are pretty upset that they can't sell the book when almost all local churches are giving it away to their members free, free from the author.

I read some of it. I liked some of it. It did not inspire me the way the Good Book does. Some people respond well to God's word that way. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 did. Bill Colrus does. Great!

The woman at the well probably would not have. Some people respond to a more personal connection from Jesus. Not that this is more important than reading God and Christ's own word, but it's fairly typical and lots of people in the Bible responded to Christ without opening a single scripture.

Christ calls us to be there for people, to reach out to them and touch their lives, to share God's love and his teachings. We are to be an example to others following the example of Christ.

I disagree with a lot of Warren's stuff, but if it brings people to Christ, more power to it. If it takes people down the worldly road of megachurches and contemporary worship services, maybe thats too bad.

My congregation would never be allowed to participate in a city-wide campaign of this sort and I'm pretty happy about that.

hadn't heard about the "free from their church" part. most everyone I know (a dozen or so people) in and around my office were more than glad to buy it, and much of its accompanying paraphernalia.

To the KJO crowd.

1. The newer translations were not translated from the KJV...they were translated from OLDER texts.

2. The newer translations didn't take away verses. The KJV erroneously included footnotes from the TR that weren't supposed to be in there. Oops.

3. The people who translated the KJV wrote as an introduction to the KJ version that people should use other translations to be sure they are getting the full picture. If the scholars who made the translation suggested using other translations and you feel they are somehow a supperior group of translators, why don't you listen to their advice.

4. If the KJV is the only accurate Bible. Are all the people who read a Spanish Bible translated from the original Hebrew and Greek being deceived too? The poor fools don't have a KJV.

5. What of all those people who read the Bible before 1611? If they could have only lived long enough to have read the REAL Bible. How tragic for them.

6. God promised to preserve His word. So, what kind of small God do you worship that can only preserve His word in one language AND IT'S NOT EVEN THE LANGUAGE IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN???

Wow. As I read down this string of posts, I am reminded how efficient the devil truly is in his work. Distract them with small details and get them off course and the rest will take care of itself...

The original point of the discussion was whether or not the points and information presented in "The Purpose Driven Life" are biblically sound and for the edification of God's people for the glory of God. 7 months after the original post, some messages have degraded into not much more than judgemental name calling.

What we all need to remember is that God will and can use any and everything to bring about HIS PURPOSE and GLORY!! Being written by a man, "The Purpose Driven Life" is guaranteed to have errors! Our responsibility is to verify everything we see, read, and hear against what we know to be absolutely error free - the Word of God. Regardless of translation, the WORD is alive, and if read under the supervision and within the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 very big ifs), will not be misinterpreted and will carry the original intention and meaning.

Use this book, and others like it, as a tool, not a lifelong creed or a fix-it for all that is wrong in your life.

I am involved in a study that will begin using this book in June. Already in prayer, I will be asking each and every participant to be vigilant to test what they read against the Word of God. That is their responsibility as students of scripture. As one of the study leaders, I will also be vigilant to "dig deeper" and verify what Mr. Warren has presented against what THE WORD says. That's what God commands us to do and any leader worth a penny will tell you to do the same. Check for yourself! Do not take the word of anyone above that of God Almighty given to us through the Holy Bible.

"Study to show yourself approved unto God rightly dividing the Word of Truth." No matter what version/translation you read, that verse comes through loud and clear. I can't study for you, so don't rely on me to tell you what God said. You'll only get us both in trouble. You can, however, take what I (or any other teacher, preacher, pastor, or leader) have said as a starting point and see for yourself whether or not it is truly in line with God's Word.
God Bless You All!