Todd -

Thanks for putting up with all of us here. Really.  I’m weary of the whole ‘who is PD, who is not ... yada, yada, yada’ deal.  Personally, I love and pray for RW and his ministry.  For some it is hard to believe that folks actually come to Christ there.  They do.  I do the same with CS - been there, grew up during the Jesus Movement there, bought the shirt, and ‘lended my ear to a love song’.  The great thing is, folks come to Christ there, get grounded there, etc.  Wondeful.  I’ve attended seminars and studies at both churches.  Been fed by both - encouraged by both - so, what is the beef here?  Plain and simple - who wants to be more right.

Todd, I am just sick of the whole tide of thought about who is more biblical than the other. 
After 30 years of pastoral ministry I have discovered that it is not whether you are emergent, non-emergent, anti-emergent and same applies to PD - the ‘Don Quixotes’ of our day need to get back to keeping and making the main thing the main thing.  Where there is real heresy, lets expose that and discuss that. 

The question for our ministries ought to be, what have we done with Jesus? We answer to God - all of us - we should conduct our respective ministries for the cause of Christ the same way.  Sorry for more rant. Call this simplistic - but that is how I feel. If CS does not want to support PD - that is his call.  It’s not mine.  I won’t judge him for it - I quietly just don’t have to support that, all the while, while speaking well of my brother.  Thanks again for hosting this site - and this discussion.

Ray

Hello again -

Just thought I’d add a few more facts to chew on.

1) About 3% of Calvary Chapel affiliates have dabbled in PD.  I have been actively seeking out other CC’s involved in PD - and compared to other church denominations/groups - relatively few have.  Possibly because part of the Calvary Chapel Distinctives is that they do not use church growth programs, but trust the Lord to build the church.  I don’t think it is fair to say that CC overall “promoted” or “pushed” PD.

2) CC affiliates generally have quite a bit of autonomy - thus they were free to explore PD until now.

3) Calvary Distribution, which formerly carried Warren’s books, carries thousands of books.  Although they probably try to screen what they carry, I am very sure that Chuck Smith is not personally able to check them all out - read them - and make sure they are in line.

4) Many of the “anti-PD” books and websites were not around in 2001 - or 2002.  Check the publishing dates, for example, of Bob DeWaay’s book (2006) which I recommended earlier.  As more people are affected by the program - more information is becoming available.

5) In 2002, when my church started PD, Rick Warren promoted his program via “pyromarketing”.  Basically, he recruited 1200 pastors and offered them huge discounts on his materials to help create a fire or buzz about his program.  You can read more about PD and pyromarketing in this article: http://www.challies.com/archives/001166.php

OK… one last time…

back to the question and post.

We’re not gonna trash PD here.  It’s just not gonna happen.

And I don’t want to get into a MacArthur vs. Warren debate either.  (I like and respect John MacArthur, but he has a grown a faction of people who elevate himself and demean other leaders that just doesn’t sit well with me).

Pyromarketing has nothing to do with this post.  (And anyway, who really cares?)

On ExPDCer’s #3 above… I’m sure Chuck was fully aware over the past 5-6 years of what was in PD stuff.  Again, you’re letting him off the hook.  (He couldn’t possibly read all Calvary distributes!).  Back to the question of the day (re-read the initial post)

So… what we’re left arguing now is mostly symantics:

--What did CS know and when did he know it?
--Did CC promote or push PD stuff of not?
--PD has been the demise of 1000s of people but only 3% of CCs
--When were anti-PD resources released?

All these are ancillary items to the initial post.

I guess the original question cannot be answered.

Deborah Dombrowski refers her website article on the Contemplative Prayer, and Emergent Church movements and supposedly reveals why these movements promote new age/Eastern practices, in particular one article on the practice of ‘Lectio Divina’.
For many people who have discovered this one wonderful prayer tool, I am sure they would conclude with me that to be able to engage with biblical text, in such a way that body, soul and spirit, ie. the whole being is interacting with the living word of God, is the most transforming and life giving experience.
When did meditating on the word, as David exhorted us to do in Psalm 1 v 2, become a ‘new age’ practice. And who has the authority to say that meditation in this way is wrong?
Perhaps ‘Youth Specialties’, who are referred to as promoting this style of prayer/connection with God, should be commended, not condemned, for introducing young people to a wholistic understanding and way of relating to God.
What are the opposers of ‘Spiritual Formation’ afraid of?
I love that we are living in times when religious practices and constraints are being recognised for their ‘life sapping’, rather than life giving tendencies.
The introduction of Lectio Devina into my prayer life, has opened the scriptures to me in a way I have not previously experienced, in my 30 years of faith development.
I am grateful to the likes of classic spiritual writers such as Henri Nouwen and others for their contribution to the rich faith heritage we enjoy.

This conflict mirrors my own journey of transformation.  I love to build boxes and attempt to contain God.  I often mistake maturity and/or conversion for a larger box; and when God bursts out of that box, I’m often perplexed, frusterated, but ultimately pleased.  Claims of theological certainty are another box; often written as an act of revenge on God for being mysterious and beyond our interpretations of scripture.  God doesn’t conform Himself to our methods or genres; which (by the way) are doomed to failure out their outset given the whole sin issue.  Some of my most powerful experiances of hearing God’s voice have been in and through faith traditions other than my native culture/language.  Icons or carpet doves on your wall, guitar or organ, expository or topical......it really is a flawed vehicle in which God brings healing, hope, peace, conviction, and ultimately redemption - even to the medium.

My hope is that God bursts out of the CC box, the PD box, the EC box.... and I’m pretty sure blogs like this are evidence that He is!  God is WITH US.

After this thread was posted I contacted the CC resources department and asked the question I’ve been asking here; “what changed to prompt this decision?” Yesterday (July 3) I got this “official” reply which I’ve pasted below.

[July 3, 2006

Why has Calvary Chapel Discontinued The Purpose Driven Life?
Recently, the decision was made to discontinue several titles, including The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren. As a brother in Christ, we respect Pastor Rick and his ministry to the church today. We appreciate the impact he has made in the lives of many.

There are some areas in which we do disagree, but we choose to do so agreeably. Our decision resulted from Pastor Rick’s emphasis on being purpose driven, where we would desire to be Spirit led. We pray God’s blessing on him and his ministry.]

I am dumbfounded that they bothered with this.  It in no way answers the question “why now, what happened?” Obviously all the years CC carried this book RW was “purpose driven” while CC always strove to be “spirit led.”

Obviously this means (according to CC) that if one is purpose driven they cannot be spirit led.  Does it also mean that if one is spirit led that they are purposeless?

Happy 4th - Wendi

My initial article posted on June 26, referring to contemplative styles of prayer, specifically the practice of ‘Lectio Divina’, was written in response to a web site article on the said practice.
Alongside that I accessed a statement issued by the Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship
(for reference see ccof@calvarychapelcom), called ‘Parson to Parson’
In this article there were stated a number of concerns with the “Emergent Church” teachings.
There were 10 concerns listed, and I quote numbers 4 and 5:

4. We have great problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc, but was filled with the spirit.

5. We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church.
Is it right for me to speak comfortable words to a man who is going to hell unless he turns from his sin? If I fail to warn him of the consequences of his sin, and he dies and goes to hell, will God require his blood at my hand? When is godly sorrow and conviction of sin such a wrong thing?

The other points are definitely worth a read, and if PD churches are considered by CC churches to be part of the Emergent Church movement, then these points might also help clarify why the withdrawal.

Jesus was a radical. He introduced great change, yet did not compromise the principles of Kingdom living espoused in the Word. Yet the only people he seemed to upset were the religious leaders, the ones who had boxed the faith according to their human interpretation and personal comfort levels.
He came to break people free of those boxes, and I think He, by the work of the Holy Spirit continues to do so today.
I quote one of the final statements in this article:
“There are those who say that Emergent movement has some good points, but so does a porcupine. You are better off if you don’t get too close!
Ouch! Strong words.

But Bobby . . . the accusation that RW and PD is designed to “make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church” is not based on anything other than disagreement with methodology.  I’ve read PDL several times and RW never says “you are a sinner and God wants you to feel safe and comfortable.” Recall the very first words in chapter 1 . . . “it’s not about you.” On the contrary, I’ve read and heard RW many times address the issue of sin and separation from God.  It’s just that his detractors don’t feel he does so often enough or strongly enough. 

On the other side we could accuse the anti-seeker bunch of preaching nothing but fire and brimstone, and in so doing completely massacring the doctrine of grace.  But notice, no one on this side has dedicated their lives to bringing down those whose methods we disagree with.

More to the point, #5 on the list that Linda reminded us about (and all the other points for that matter) say nothing about why CC all of a sudden stopped promoting and selling PDL materials.  Neither did their “formal statement” dated July 3, which claims to answer the question. 

So what on earth does #5 have to do with why the sudden change?  As long as Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel refuses to answer the question, RW stands taller (in my book).

Wendi

Wendi, I’m not sure, but you may have missed my point.  I have no problem with RW or PD.  I think it’s great stuff if that’s how a church wants to fashion itself.  I have no problem with a church wanting sinners to feel comfortable coming to church on Sunday morning, because that’s where they need to be.  I really believe it is possible to make “sinners” feel safe in a church while still being centered on God’s word, and if that’s the case, Jesus will definitely teach them and transform them sooner or later.

So I just think #5 is kinda bogus, period.  Even #4.  If a church wants to use candles and incense, or even icons of some sort to help in worship, but the candles and incense themselves are not the focus of worship, but Jesus is, then what’s the problem?  Just don’t see the need to slam anothers methodology when it really isn’t very crucial to salvation.

Is this a case of “some follow Paul and some follow Apollos”? (or in this case “some follow Chuch Smith and some follow McLaren”?  In the end we’re all supposed to be following Jesus.

I can’t say anything about “The Purpose Driven Church” - I haven’t read any of Rick Warren’s works (am I one of the last Christians left who hasn’t?) so I can’t comment.  However I have read a good bit of the Emerging Church people (McLaren, Sweet, Miller) and I really am in agreement with most of it.  This week I got a mailer from a Christian group that proclaims themselves as “the watchmen on the wall” - keepers of orthodoxy, I suppose, where they completely trashed McLaren taking many quotes out of context and in the end essentially proclaiming him a heretic.  This is just sad.

It’s also sad that Chuch Smith and CC (I attended a CC for many years and I have a lot of respect for Chuch Smith) have now come out against the emergent church and contemplative spirituality (do they want us to have non-contemplative spirituality?).  Doesn’t this always happen?  CC and Smith were on the cutting edge back in the late ‘60s and they were criticized by the more established churches of the time.  Fast forward about 40 years and CC is the established church taking potshots at the Emergent folks who are trying to figure out how to live out the gospel in their own cultural context.  Seems like this sort of thing happens on a very regular schedule.

I just hope there can be some understanding reached between the Emergents and their critics.  At this point I really think that the critics for the most part have no understanding of what is really going on in the ‘Emergent Church’ (it’s really hard to say that it’s a monolithic movement even at this point).  They see candles and thing “Catholic” and then they automatically write it all off.

Thanks Wendy, for your work in getting some clarification.

My kids are 8, 10, 12, and 14 and I actually DO immediately respond to their questionable behavior rather than wait to see how thing work out for them.  Especially if the questionable behavior is what I consider wrong.

So, he is saying that what PD teaches isn’t necessarily wrong; but they don’t see positive fruit, so they made this decision?

That seems to go against their initial statement:  “The teaching and positions of Rick Warren have come into conflict with us as Calvary Chapel.” That seems to indicate something more than a “we are better served by not carrying the product”.

Regardless, I’m afraid we’re beating a dead horse at this time, and it’s time to dismount.  CC can do what ever they want to in regards to RW and PD; and in the grand scheme of things, it probably really won’t matter much.

Todd

By the time he died in 1910, Mark Twain was perhaps the best-known national celebrity. His final illness, death and funeral were treated as front page news across the country. <a href= “http://roots.2blest.com/gifts.html” >roots 2blest com</a> Most papers relied on the Associated Press reports of these final events; by clicking on the paper at left, you can see how the AP covered the story. <a href= “http://www.veteransfamilystore.com/27.html” >veteransfamilystore </a> http://www.veteransfamilystore.com/27.html

Dave Z says:
“A few minutes ago, over on the story about “inclusive language” and the PCUSA, I posted some comments about a possible split in that denomination and a split in progress in another denomination.  Congregations leaving CC kind of qualifies for a third denominational split.  Then we have all the trouble in the Episcopal Church.  Seems like everyone is dividing except the Independents – and they don’t have an organization to split from.  What’s going on? “

This is what occurs when people use the Bible as the sole authority rather than the Church Jesus started. I don’t believe this is what Jesus desired when he prayed to the Father that they would be one.