Job, come on.  John 7:24, completely out of context may appear to support your argument, but in context it doesn’t

Jesus was admonishing the people to make a right judgment about Him.  He was not instructing anyone to judge other believers or unbelievers.

Job, if you go back a little further back in verse 19, Jesus asks, “”Why are you trying to kill me?” And in v. 23 he asks “…why are you angry with me…?”

Jesus was talking to those who would judge Him, not the child being circumcised. 

2 Thessalonians 3:6 would require judgment to determine who you should “withdraw and keep away from”, but I don’t see how that appoints any of us judge and jury over another’s ministry.

Paul is not talking about theology or ministry here, Paul makes it clear in the verses that follow that he is referring to the problem of laziness which was a problem in the Thessalonian community. 

7 For you know that you ought to imitate us. We were not idle when we were with you. 8 We never accepted food from anyone without paying for it. We worked hard day and night so we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We certainly had the right to ask you to feed us, but we wanted to give you an example to follow. 10 Even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “Those unwilling to work will not get to eat.”
11 Yet we hear that some of you are living idle lives, refusing to work and meddling in other people’s business. 12 We command such people and urge them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and work to earn their own living.

Of course I would encourage anyone to keep away from any ministry they believe to be false and I’m not arguing the we aren’t supposed to have our personal judgments of others.  But in the passage you cite Paul criticizes people for “meddling in other people’s business”.

Could trashing another’s ministry efforts be considered “meddling in other people’s business”?

I agree that the sensationalistic sermon / series titles, meant to attract attention, are sometimes disconcerting.  And I wish they weren’t necessary, but often these antics” work to bring unbelievers in contact with believers for the purpose of evangelism.

Our church had a sermon series titled “Sex:101” and I talked to some people who thought that was inappropriate.  But I tend to be more concerned with the whole message rather than just the sensational points.  The message was basically, if you’re married have all the sex you want with your spouse (it can serve to strengthen the bonds between a husband and wife) and if you’re not married you shouldn’t be having sex.  Our Pastor talked about the complementary roles of men and women and other biblical concepts and preached a biblically solid sermon.

Before the sermon the talk was I can’t believe he’s going to talk about sex, but after the sermon it was “good message” and “you know, he’s right”.  He specifically addressed young, unmarried people.

And I agree that we should always be open to the truth.  Discerning what is truth and what is not is often the hard part, determining what is fact and what is opinion.

Have a nice evening, it’s been nice talking with you.

Anybody open to listening to some church?

I’m at the Willow Arts Conference here in Chicago this week (I’m blogging about it if anyone’s interested. Click on my name.) Anyway, I just got back from their Midweek service (which is transitioning next week to a more classroom approach. This was the last regular New Community service and also this was Randy Frazee’s last night here.) I suspect that most anyone who thinks this church isn’t sold out to genuine worship by real believers and yet at the same time sold out to being a major force for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this hurting and broken world either hasn’t been here or has a heart of stone, or perhaps both. I’m going to assume you who are being hyper-critical just haven’t been here.

Sorry, but going to the source, the lame arguments against what this incredible church is doing just fall totally flat.

And JOB, your “chapters and verses REALLY fall flat for me, too. Seemed really stretching and out of context.

Are we done here yet?

A good nights sleep and a good cup of java now I can continue.

Peter said, “And JOB, your “chapters and verses REALLY fall flat for me, too. Seemed really stretching and out of context.”

Of course this isn’t true.  I am arguing that as believers we are accountable to each other, that God has positioned us to be discerning.  The whole of Scripture supports this and the verses I mentioned support it also.  The way Daniel was using context it would make it impossible to apply anyhting from those verses to us today.  By arguing with me that we should be judging and discerning it seems you are supporting extreme tolerance.  Or are you just disagreeing because I said it?  This should put it all in perspective back to the Reveal study fromt he Willowcreek Repents? article, Hybels said,

“We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians,................”

Here Hybels admits a mistake.  So I guess what Peter, Daniel and others are arguing here is that is ok if Hybels admits his mistakes but no one else is allowed to.  Of course this is ridiculous.  But here is another chapter and verse and I have more.

I Thes 5:21 21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

15 minutes

JOB, Bill Hybels said the REVEAL study showed they needed to make some adjustments and they are committed to making those adjustments.  He never said their whole philosophy for reaching the lost was a mistake.

You seem to be arguing that they are completely wrong in everything they do.  They DID the study to try and see if they could do things better, they found in the study that they could and are making the course corrections they believe are appropriate.  How does this deserve criticism?

You said you agree that we shouldn’t be “trashing” another’s ministry efforts, so I guess it depends on what one considers “trashing” another’s ministry efforts? 

I’ve heard them criticized for initiating the REVEAL study, but why wouldn’t we want to know how we can better reach the unbeliever and better disciple the believer?  I’ve heard them criticized for admitting they were wrong in some areas and for saying they are making corrections, but shouldn’t we admit when we’re wrong and shouldn’t we make corrections when we’re wrong? 

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t think anyone here is advocating “extreme” tolerance.  Willow Creek isn’t LDS or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Westboro Baptist.  They’re not doing anything that would require extreme tolerance, they’re just “doing” church a little different than you and some others critical of them think they should be.

I think a lot of what you and others don’t like about Willow Creek and other “seeker-sensitive” churches comes down to matters of style, not substance.  There are essentials, convictionals, and preferentials.  I believe one problem is that for Fundamentalists EVERYTHING seems to be essentials.

I wasn’t arguing that we should not be judging and discerning, but I think many cross the line into being judgmental and condemning.  So I guess we’ll just have to disagree on what one considers “trashing” another’s ministry efforts.

j

What JOB???  You would attend Leonard’s church for a gas card, even when giving these away is clearly a gimmic designed to lure so-called seekers to his church?  How completely unbiblical of you.

Wendi

And if they have multiple services I could go to each service and be set for a month.  I would sell the knives on ebay.

Daniel,

If you’re going to hand out incentives to get people to church so you can share the Gospel with them, when you do so please don’t call it a “miracle” when attendance is high.  I was a youth pastor for awhile and the best attended events always had Pizza.  Jesus fed the five thousand after they listened to him all day.

Ah, but in the Matt 15 feeding of 4000, Jesus had used the gimmick of healing (can’t call it a miracle since it was the incentive to get them to come to Him) to gather crowds for three days, requiring nothing of anyone before He healed them, not even evidence of faith or repentance.  Once His gimmick worked, THEN he multiplied the loaves and fishes.  Was it a miracle then JOB?  He didn’t make these guys and gals listen to Him for three days before feeding them.  In fact, He just sat on the hill to rest and the crowds started coming.  He didn’t even ask them to follow Him.  Wonder why not?

I work for a para-church youth ministry and we have always believed that pizza is anointed food, created by God for ministry purposes. 

And CS, nearly everything we have in church today would be worldly for the 1st century audience.  Owning buildings, having organs and sound systems, FT paid pastors, computers, e-mail, internet . . .  You have chosen which “worldly” things are acceptable.  If you’d done that simply for your own ministry that would be fine, but you are imposing you definition onto all of Christendom, and that my friend is sinful judging.

This is comment 92.  We’re closing in on 100.

Wendi

Jesus didn’t want people following Him for the wrong reasons.  If you want to feel free to call them incentives.

“26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. “

And how many times did He instruct those who He healed to tell no man?

Leonard and Peter I know completely out of context.

I’m the 100th comment! Wooo Hoooo!!!

Not I have to make this count. After I am 100 that is.