My guess is that #2 is the liberal and #1 is the conservative.

Although the wording is awfully similar, the perspectives they bring are actually very different. Quote number one speaks of adaptation, while quote number two speaks of replacement.

The first quote states that change must happen or the church will die. A change in form is different from a change _of_ form, which is what the second quote seems to call for.

Am I right?

I have to guess that the second comment is by John Shelby Spong. He has been espousing that the church needs to under-go a complete transformation for awhile. I think though if you will check out the link I list, if indeed this is a quote from Spong, you will find he really is MORE than a “liberal” that his theology is heretical in its teachings. I know those are strong words but when you make statements like “the Christology of the ages is bankrupt” and “The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed” than there really is not any other words to describe him than heretic. This is just the tip of the iceberg in his “call for a new reformation” - check out the link and I’m going to find out if I was right and the 2nd quote is Spong.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html

Well… here are the answers:

1.  Conservative pastor Rick Warren.
2.  Liberal theologian John Shelby Spong.

Good job!

Todd

These two quotes are excessively burdened, and therefore this debate is, by the convictions of those who stated them. In the first instance, positively, and in the second, negatively.

Warren has proven by his life and actions, especially over the past half decade or so, that his idea of a new reformation is possible, and not only compatible with the Gospel of Christ, but indeed, it may eventually be the proof of that Gospel.

It would be generous to call Spong a heretic. I think it’s impossible to even call him a Christian. His ideas are Deism at best. In the document mentioned above, he shows that his view of Scripture is very low, much lower than even the deeply flawed philosophies of Darwin and Freud. But if Christ is not raised, we are very wretched indeed.

I continue to hope that few if any serious Christian leaders even bother to debate him on his points. Let’s preach and do the Gospel in our neighborhoods, towns, cities, and countries and leave this “debate” in the increasingly irrelevant University where it belongs.

I am a classically trained church musician and have been in many, many churches of all denominations. Some have been spirit filled and some are indeed little social clubs that are already basically dead. I am working for a church now that is struggling.
I can tell you from experience that all the modern, contemporary, creative, new worship services in the world will not help. If the peoples’ hearts are sincere, the traditional worship service (with the Lord’s meal included!)is a beautiful thing and the Holy Spirit will be there. Also, the problems facing many churches today are not always internal but external. That is, the whole of our American materialistic society is a tough nut to crack no matter what format a church decides to take. Do not though out the baby with the bath water!