Being judicious about judging
Posted: June 18th, 2009 | Author: James Duncan | Tags: Judging, Leadership | 87 Comments »If you’ve been following the comments in the Gary Lamb and church-purpose posts, you may have noticed the emergence of a third argument against the blog (the first two being “go away”, and “people are being saved”), which is that we should not judge.
(We’ll get to that issue in a minute, but first a comment about the over-the-top reaction to the Gary Lamb posts. Before you accuse me of judging Lamb or belittling him or his congregation, please review the content of my posts. The first one was the product of a little bit of research on Lamb’s blog which showed his moves to get close to his partner in the affair. The second criticized his lack of a public apology to Elena. The next simply showed his own sermon titles, which are interesting in the context of the acknowledged affair. Then the following two were more focused on Perry Noble’s self-described legalistic approach to avoiding affairs, the point of which was to prevent more Gary Lamb-type stories. I don’t see where the offensive judging is, especially when Lamb himself broadcast news of his affair.)
Should we judge? Of course. The folk who are accusing me of judging are themselves judging me for judging, so it is apparently something even the best of us cannot help but do. That’s just as well, because the Bible clearly calls us to judge, especially church leaders.
For all who quote the “do not judge” verse, let’s look at it in context from Matthew 7:1-6:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.
This is not an absolute prohibition on judging; it’s a warning that the standards that we hold others to will be used to measure us. It’s really a warning against legalism. If we condemn men for riding alone with women in elevators, for example, we are fair game for being condemned if we do the same thing. At the end of the plank-in-eye lesson, the judging brother does actually remove the speck. Note, also, verse 6. After the words about being careful about judging, Jesus challenges us to judge so that we can identify the dogs and pigs.
Look, also, just a little later in the same chapter. From Matthew 7:15-16:
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.
We are to watch the prophets’ words and actions and judge whether they are true or false. My goal on this blog is to match the words and actions of various high-profile leaders against the standards of Scripture. That is the measure that I’m trying to use, which is already the measure that God uses to judge me. (I can think of one exception when I criticized Cooper for deleting Tommy’s comments from his blog. That is not a scriptural standard, but having measured BCoop by that standard, you are all welcome to judge me if I retroactively delete users’ comments.)
Let’s deal with a few more specific questions about judging.
- We’re all on the same team. Aren’t you just being divisive? Yes, therefore yes. The Bible requires believers to hold teachers to high standards of truth. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul, who was at the time teaching inspired truth. 1 Corinthians 11:19 tells us that disputes over propriety in worship are useful in helping us find truth. 2 Peter 2 warns us to be vigilant against false teachers, who are, by definition, not obvious. They can only be smoked out by rigorous testing against Scripture. If anything, we should be much more vigorous in testing people on our own team. Look at 1 Corinthians 5:12-13:
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Let the unbelievers be wrong, but we must insist on what is right inside the church, to the point of expelling immoral members.
- Should you be doing this in public? Preferably not, but it’s not such a bad thing. Almost the entire New Testament is written against the backdrop of doctrinal disputes–first Jesus and the Pharisees, later Paul versus the other apostles and then against false teachers in the churches. Those disputes are part of God’s Word to us, which is the foundation for evangelism. It is the Holy Spirit that draws men to Christ, so why would a conversation between Christians who are seeking to properly apply the Bible to our worship and living be so debilitating? Do we want to be telling the world that truth and holiness don’t matter? Truth is attractive, though not always serene.
A second reason is that there is no other available forum. I think I have stated this before, but my initial reaction when I first encountered the anti-Christian content on Noble’s blog was to write him a private letter. Long before I wrote the billboards newspaper article, I repeatedly approached Noble through the official channels in his church. As we’ve seen over and over, Noble refuses to engage his critics privately. What we have, then, is a church leader who defames the Christian church loudly, frequently and publicly. I would argue that we are left with a moral responsibility to defend the church loudly, frequently and publicly.
- But you and your church aren’t perfect. Correct, but I and my church are not trying to start a Reformation. We are not leading hundreds of other pastors and church planters and trying to define for them what the church is. I respect Noble/Furtick/Warren etc for being the influential leaders that they are (recall all the times I’ve defended Noble’s salary on that basis), and I take what they say seriously.
- Can’t we all just get along? Sure. Once you all agree with me, think how happy you’ll be.
Similar Posts:
- Leaders are sooo special, don’t you know?
- What’s next for Gary Lamb?
- In the same way that you judge others, you’ll be exempt
- Chemistry at work
- How Perry Noble’s legalism failed Gary Lamb
Nice defense on judging. Matt. 7:1-5 is one of the most irritatingly misquoted and misinterpreted parts of the Bible. It seems to be every non-believer’s favorite Bible quote, doesn’t it?
For the record, I’ve never had a problem with your blog testing the words and actions of pastors against scripture. My concern is when you take their words and actions out of context or twist them to make your point.
Very solid points James.
I too have tried to reach Perry Noble and Brad Cooper with my concerns. I fully agree that since Perry Noble is very vocal in his attacks against the orthodox church, that we should be very vocal using the Scriptures to expose the errors coming from Perry Noble and NewSpring.
As a former NewSpringer, I can tell you the little secret of home groups is to fortify what Perry Noble preached the Sunday before. These groups do talk and get to know each other, but are they really searching the Scriptures or merely backing up Noble’s teachings. To me this is yet another smoke screen to keep the masses “plugged in” and to keep them focuses on what Noble wants them to be focused on.
It’s really disturbing how so many NewSpringer’s scoff at the Scriptures when the Scriptures shine light upon Perry Noble’s errors, fowl mouth, and violation of 1 Cor 13. When I was a member of NewSpring I tried to take my concerns to Perry Noble. Each time I was intercepted by the campus pastor and I was not allowed to speak to Perry. At one of these meetings the people there even took notes as I challenged the children’s minister over his poor judgment and actions using the Scriptures. When I tried to contact Perry Noble the last time prior to leaving NewSpring with my concerns, I was ignored by Noble and told to leave the church. My crime was simply reading the Scriptures and trying to follow them by directly speaking to the brother/sister who is in error by reasoning through the Scriptures. I discovered that with Perry Noble and the staff of NewSpring the Scriptures do not matter when they conflict with Perry Noble.
Rebellious people will always be drawn by Perry Noble’s and NewSprings antics because rebellion is promoted; it’s light a light to a candle fly. Blogs like this serve to warn parents and people who are distracted by NewSprings numbers, good works, and image of godliness. It’s clear to anyone who reads this blog or any other critique of NewSpring that the defenders place very little value on the Scriptures as a whole.
Perry Noble’s and Brad Cooper’s fowl mouth should be enough to make the people attending demand Perry Noble and Brad Cooper justify their actions using the Scriptures or publicly apologize to the members and community.
Please note that I did nor say all people who go to NewSpring are rebellious and scoff at the Scriptures.
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs, if you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces”.
Jesus’ pig analogy gives us the key to interpreting this passage. Judging others actions and words is not the sin here. The sinful act or thought lies in the way we show contempt towards others when we think we know what they need better than they know what they need. What we give them is what we think they need, when they actually may need something else. And though what we try to give them may be of great value, it may be useless for them at the time. Hence, the hungry pig stomps on the precious pearls to come after your leg. Because your leg is edible and the pig is, after all, hungry.
This passage on judging others is in the same broad discussion Jesus had regarding the other ways we show contempt towards others: anger, murder, name calling, insults, sexual lust, adultery and divorce (contempt toward women in general), insincere oaths and promises, revenge (Matthew 5,6,&7). It is no accident that the subject of the passage is really not about judgment, per se, but how we ultimately treat people with disrespect and contempt.
So the moral is, go ahead and demonstrate to people that you know what they need better than they know what they need, but look out for the teeth marks.
There are some incredibly heretical churches out there that need to have a spotlight of rebuke shown on them. We need to name them! I would be the first to do it and often do name names even to my youth group. Their are some out there that say church is any two people gathered together anywhere, be it over coffee or water skiing. That is not biblical. Some of the Emergent ideas out there are dangerous, but not every emergent camp is. For example, Mark Driscoll’s church in Seattle. I was just at the Advance 09 Conference which was a Reformed conference and it was all about this stuff. I saw Brad Cooper there and he was jacked up about the conference.
I’m telling you this to say that He’s listening to Piper, Driscoll, Chandler, Greear, Tyler, etc. which are some AWESOME guys. They were ADAMANT about preaching what you are saying. If you get a chance, go to DesiringGod.org and look up the Advance 09 conference and listen to Driscoll’s sermon on “What is the Church.” It’s pretty awesome.
Brad seemed to really enjoy the conference and honestly, if he is in the camp you are speaking about then I think he would have HATED the conference. It spoke against all the things you are speaking against for the most part, but clarifying the difference between what God requires and man’s traditions. I think we often hold up our traditions higher than we hold up God’s word, or lack there of on certain things (such as trinkets, advertising, Sunday school etc.)
I’m just saying that they can’t be far from what you are saying they should be if they are listening to guys like Driscoll and Piper on a regular basis. Sometimes we have to give ministers time to sort through things. I think they are getting to solid ground on a lot of stuff. Everyones idea of church will differ because there are very few clear cut examples of church in the New Testament. We can’t go down the road that says if God doesn’t command it, it is forbidden (if that were the case then Sunday school is out, though I don’t think I would mind). I think a lot of people want to go down that road and also go down the road of man’s traditions. Driscoll says that a church is a group of Christians that meet regularly and worship God, perform the sacraments, and believe in the core doctrines. I think it’s pretty safe to say that New Spring is doing this. I’ve been there a time or two and haven’t seen anything off hand that goes against scripture. Of coarse I’ve only been there a time or two.
That is not to say though that your qualms with new Spring aren’t legit, but I still think it’s better not to mention names. I want to see them thrive as much as I want to see every church in America thrive as long as they are not a heretical church. I would rather see us encourage them in the good things they do and build a relationship with them before we rebuke the other things. I would just hate it if someone was so adamantly against my church. My church has a lot wrong with it too. But, “once reforming, always reforming.” There is always room for every church to grow.
I love you brother, don’t take any of this wrong or that I’m against you. I’m just looking out for you and hoping for God’s Kingdom and my brothers.
MW,
It’s nice that they listen to Driscoll, but I think we can be allowed to be more concerned about what comes out of their mouths than what is going into their ears.
Take a look at Lauren’s comment in the Turnstile church post. Her NS home group is studying Rob Bell (as in watching his videos).
Driscoll thinks he’s a heretic, yet Cooper’s church is feeding his teachings to their flock.
What gives?
Just out of curiosity, where do you go to church James?
To all my fellow NSers. You can see there is no winning on this blog! They say that it’s ok to judge but do you really think God likes that On this blog Mr Duncan calls PN a false prophet, and says to expel the wicked man among you. They call him a church leader that defames the christian church louldly, frequently and publicly. We that go to NS know that this is not true. That PN is trying to win hearts for Jesus. You will never win on this blog! They turn everything you say around and put words in your mouth. They can even make scripture mean what they want it to! James even made the comment that Mat 7:1-6 is a non beleivers favorite verse. So I guess he is calling me a non beleiver! Wow thats AWESOME james that you know that about people that you have never even meet . Maybe you are a prophet!!! The people on this blog just can’t stand it that perry won’t lower himself down to their standards and won’t come on here and call people names and down grade them like they do him! we should do the same you no the saying ignor it and it will go away!
I am calling all NEW SPINGERS TO STAY AWAY FROM THIS NONSENSE! WE know who we are and what we believe. WE know that perry loves Jesus and he is winning people for Christ. HE didnt build a huge church so he could gloat about it. God Built New Spring!! PN is good but he ain’t that good! BUT GOD IS!! Lets only focus on Jesus and making NS even Bigger!!! I again challange you not to even look at this web site. We are doing exactly what Duncan wants! IF we don’t come who can he argue against! I will not be returning to this site after today! If you agree with me putt your name on my tweeter so Duncan And his followers can see that he can not bring us down! And to Duncan and your followers I will be praying for you and I ask all of NS to pray for them. NS WE ARE BETTER THEN THIS!!!! my tweeter is adwhitten. God bless!
Audra,
Actually, it was JT who said the verse was often a favorite of unbelievers. FYI, he’s usually on your side.
I’m just wondering not assuming, but do you think NS is a heretical church?
By heresy I mean the major heresies to the core of scriptural truth? We all have a little heresy in us because we are human and can’t ever seem to get scripture down perfectly, but aside from minor issues, do you think they are worthy to be called heretics?
Just wondering what you thought.
sorry, hit the send before I meant to…
… If so I would understand the need to mention names and call them out, but I personally haven’t seen heresy on the major issues.
Baptist call us heretics for preaching predesitination and baptizing babies, we call them heretics because they don’t. That is surface level heresy. I mean the big stuff, triune God, Christ the only way, inherency of scripture, etc.
MW, you call them heretics for believers’ baptism? Really? You’re a much harsher judge than I.
You might be interested in reviewing the comments to this post for a bit of a discussion on what counts as heresy.
I have said that they are susceptible to heresy (see here), and that was before today’s reports of the Rob Bell small group (he is wrong on your “big stuff”). The main point of this argument is that if you refuse to judge, you’ll never see heresy when it comes. You’ll end up embracing Bell videos when you’re supposed to be doing discipleship.
I am sorry but I don’t get it; what’s wrong with Rob Bell? Really someone explain.
MW, one more thing.
You seem hung up on the fact that I mention names. I’m pointing to their public statements on the World Wide Internet. Wouldn’t hiding their identities be a little weird? One of the infuriating things about Noble is his practice of defaming the church in general terms. You’ll find a few posts on this site where I challenge him for some evidence of the things he complains of.
What good would it be to say that I’ve found a youth group that does all these things, or a pastor that makes up Bible verses, but refuse to tell anyone who it is? If I’m not specific about the what and the who, people might think I was talking about you or your group.
Good question. Here’s some information on his problems.
Ok I went to the site. I will investigate on my own but if anyone wants to shed light, please. I am willing to hear what you have to say. But sorry James, all this site said is they had a dislike for Bell and none of the links on the reasons why went anywhere. So still, all I know is someone doesn’t like him.
Here’s Driscoll on Bell.
And your church is which one, James?
OK, that went somewhere. Thanks. All these people that dislike Bell love some McAuthor. We did 11 weeks of that. We have only done 1 week of Bell. We did months of studies spurred by Stanley and Tommy Sparger is a good preacher. You ought to check him out, in your spare time. In group, we disciple and by that I mean, I encourage them to read The Word daily, to pray, to serve others (not just the church); we do community outreach every other month and don’t attach NS name to it just to pump it up. We are there to serve, period. We do invite lost friends to church and we talk about issues we struggle with to get veiwpoints from other Christians as to how to proceed. I don’t try to complicate things. We keep it simple and the effect of trying to figure our lives out in the context is positive. Jesus is good and he is good to us and I have seen positive life change over and over and I am so happy I get to be a part of it. And GLORY BE TO GOD for all of it. Lord, thank you for your son and the love he showed us at the cross.
@ Lauren
I can give one example of why Rob Bell isn’t so great.
In his Elvis book, he gives an example of a trampoline and how each of the supporting springs represents a doctrine of the Christian Faith. He talks about how each of these springs gives the trampoline mat some give and bounce to keep the person jumping. Not exactly an orthodox example, but it’s not too terrible.
Until he says you don’t need each and every spring to keep jumping. He says (in so many words) that Christians don’t necessarily need to believe in the Virgin Birth. He tells readers that if that particular doctrine causes them to lose faith, then it wasn’t really worth their trouble believing in it.
That’s heresy.
Here’s the entire quote:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?
What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?
I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more . . . But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?
- Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis p. 26-27
Translation: “I choose to believe in the virgin birth, but you don’t have to. If Christ’s divinity gives you trouble or makes you stumble, it wasn’t really that important to begin with…”
Confessional heresy vs. Biblical. Or better Non-Salvific vs. Salvific. I tried to make that clear and separate the two. just didn’t give it that name. I was wondering if you consider them Salvific heretics or if you consider your differences to be non-Salvific? If they are non-salvific then I am questioning your reason for mentioning names. The men in the bible only mention names when something is heresy that affects salvation. Your stabs seem to be pointed and not discussional over non-salvific issues. If they are salvific then tell me. That is what I am trying to get at here.
I’m saying that you are making a fuss and digging trenches against your brother over medial things in light of the big war. “If they are for us, they are not against us.” Also, John 17 reminds us of the IMPORTANCE of unity. I don’t think God would want us condemning our brothers over non-salvific issues. Sorry if I am wrong in saying this but what you say comes across condemning at times. I may be reading the wrong tone. My apologies if I do. I think of 1 Peter 4:8 though with all of this, “Love each other DEEPLY for love covers a multitude of sin.”
I just wonder if the venue for so many harsh words might better be somewhere a bit more private. Not where you are exposing the shame of the church to the world. I personally don’t like the church walking around with her skirt around her neck.
Venues like this cause the world to look at us and say, “what a bunch of hypocrites! They can’t even get along with each other and they talk about love. Where is love in a place like that?” I just think that criticisms over non-salvific issues should be reserved for a more private venue. If you are rebuking them for Salvific reasons then I could better understand the venue. That is why I am asking. I’m not accusing.
And, no, I would never call a baptist a heretic. I was giving a ridiculous example for a reason. I am wondering if that is what you are doing with these issues or if you are truly saving people from and preaching against a false prophet. Just trying to catch up here. Not accuse. I don’t have time to read everything right now. I just want the skinny on whether or not you think they are causing people to go to hell from their preaching. That is when we stop worrying about being nice and start cappin’ some wolves. If they are heretics and are sending people to hell with their preaching and we need to light the bon fire, then explain why, and if you are right I’ll be with you 100%. light the torches! get out the pitch forks!
I just don’t see that though, and I think exposing the nakedness of the church is not good.
I’m not saying you are wrong about the issues, but let’s discuss issues and not bash brothers. If they are preaching and teaching and practicing the core doctrines of the church then they are brothers and deserve our encouragement and loving, private, rebuke. If they are heretics then let’s name some names and call it out to the world so that they can be warned and might stay away from a cult.
I missed one of your answers. In regards to the Rob Bell comment. Judging doctrine and judging others is not the same thing. If Rob Bell’s doctrine is heretical then I would stay way away from anything from that guy and proclaim him a heretic. That’s not judging, that’s proclaiming truth. Just because I am arguing for a more diplomatic and private venue for all of this doesn’t mean I don’t agree doctrinally with you. If they are on the verge of heresy though, a blog isn’t going to keep them from going over the edge. A loving and private plea might though. If they venture into heresy then I’m with ya… shout it from the roof tops. Warn others. If someones salvation is in danger by going to New Spring then this is the right venue. If not, well… give them some room to mess up or not always get it right before announcing to the world all of this stuff. I have never been at a church where everything was right. It takes the Spirit to change and God to Judge. We are called to love our brothers always and be unified, always encouraging and rebuking with love. Their good and their edification should always be our top priority.
P.S. I’m with ya on Bell. I would never dispute you on that one.
MW,
I’m kind of confused about where you’re coming from or how long you’ve been following PP. You have come in throwing around big words like heresy and demanding that I make a judgment about whether PN is a heretic (in comments where you don’t want us to judge). That is not, and had never been, a focus of this blog. I have repeatedly made statements that affirm that PN and I are on the same team, which I would have assumed meant that I didn’t think he’s sending people to hell.
Your comments give the impression that there’s a lot on this blog that you haven’t seen. Pastors referring to church as Bad A** M*** F*** deserves our silence? Opening condoms and endorsing fornication in church demands that we keep our lips sealed? A pastor wishing he’d beaten up an old church lady with a baseball bat should be left alone?
None are in the category of salvific heresies, but I don’t think it’s so awful to point them out and condemn them. What’s remarkable is that my condemnation appears to be a problem to some people. I would have thought it was a no-brainer.
I just don’t see that contending for truth and holiness is hypocritical. By what means would we hide such discussions from the unsaved? Should we require a secret handshake to ensure that we let only believers into the the Lifeway Christian Bookstore on Clemson Blvd lest an unbeliever see a book on doctrine or worship and get the vapors?
Blog audiences are self selecting. I have not asked anyone to come and read this. If you or others don’t like it, you’re free to never come back. I won’t complain. Apparently, this stuff is important to many people, though.
Check through some of the early posts and comments, and especially some of the conversations between Tommy F and Seth. One declared goal of the blog and of the discussions is to challenge NSers to be able to think through and make a case for what they do. You’ll notice by the length of some of the discussions that PP has welcomed that.
PN and co. are self-consciously controversial; they advertise that fact about themselves. They want to be seen as rebels. What is surprising (hypocritical?) is the thin skin when someone does find them controversial and rebellious. Noble makes his living by throwing elbows at other Christians and churches (including you and your own church), and you seem to want to throw your body in front of him so that no-one puts up a public defense against his public nonsense. Fair enough, but I am surprised.
MW,
When you say, “I just wonder if the venue for so many harsh words might better be somewhere a bit more private. Not where you are exposing the shame of the church to the world. I personally don’t like the church walking around with her skirt around her neck,” are you talking about me or Noble?
Does deception have to start with blatant heresy? It seems to me that it would probably start with smaller things. Maybe an unhealthy view of Scripture…I don’t know. From there, the wolf would probably take small steps away from Orthodoxy before finally arriving at something (like Bell) that is no longer Christianity.
Have I hear Perry Noble say anything that was down-right heretical? I don’t think so.
Do I see warning signs in him and his followers that cause me to question hwere this is headed, and how healthy it is right now? Definitely.
Should we ignore those warning signs? In my opinion, it is bettor to err on the side of truth than risk thousands of people being led astray. If these issues aren’t a big deal, GREAT! Then they can be easily remedied. However, when the issues are brought up, instead of being addressed, everyone wants to take the “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” approach. I don’t see how that is helpful at all.
That is all I was asking for. A rundown of why exactly you are writing so much about New Spring and you just gave it to me. It was a simple question and all I needed was that. I don’t know what you are getting out of my comments but they are inquisitive, not directive. I still don’t agree with setting up a blog for everything you see that new spring does. I DO understand if they are handing out condoms that you warn some people publicly. To me that a pretty biblical issue. Something that is VERY straight forward and not on the outer rim of doctrine. If they are promoting sex then they are promoting something that is in direct oposition to God. That is what I was trying to find out. Again, like I said, I was only inquiring, not accusing. I’ve said that now a few times. Maybe you missed it. Sorry if I offended. I’m just trying to decide if I support what you are saying and doing or not. Some of the things I’ve read on here I don’t really care about and wouldn’t make an issue over on a blog. Handing out condoms is another thing though and needs to be rebuked and judged. That is a good reason to judge, when someone goes directly against scripture. I guess that is what I was trying to pull out of you. Not everything else on the blog is that cut and dry though.
What I mean by lifting the skirt is that a blog that is public like this one lets the world peak into a non-unified, hypocritical and un-loving church. I’m just saying we shouldn’t proclaim our problems to the world if it’s not absolutely necessary. I have a hard time with that if it’s over non-salvific or non-core issues. I don’t care if Perry cusses or plays ACDC. If he wants to do that then he is held accountable before God, not man. Strangly sometimes though, things like this get taken out of context. For instance, I attended the night they played ACDC and even though it made me a little uneasy, they tied it in to the lesson and it somehow, strangely fit. Their is nothing in scripture that says “Thou shall not play any secular music while people are walking into church.” It’s not like it was part of the worship time. It was played while people were walking in a sitting down.
The antithesis runs through and not around. God’s truth can be found somewhere in everything. In context some of these things aren’t as bad as your making them out to be. I only know that because I’ve seen a couple of these first hand. I am Reformed to the hilt and grew up in a traditional Pres. Church. I get really skiddish of things like this, but honestly after I got through it their was nothing blasphemous or unbiblical about the things I saw at NS. That is not to say that there aren’t a LOT of things I haven’t seen and probably a lot that they are doing that is dangerous and wrong, but I’m just saying that if something doesn’t need to be mentioned publicly then it shouldn’t.
What warrants public rebuke? Public and blatant sin. That’s why I’m with you on the condom thing. It’s just some of the stuff I’ve read so far on here over the last three days I don’t see the need for rebuking publicly. Some of it just comes across as slander and it’s just not going to help.
The reason I’ve been reading your blog is because you have been getting a lot of attention apparently from a lot of people in town and people either really like your blog or really hate it. that is why I’m curious and asking these questions.
“Handing out condoms is another thing though and needs to be rebuked and judged. That is a good reason to judge, when someone goes directly against scripture. I guess that is what I was trying to pull out of you. Not everything else on the blog is that cut and dry though.”
To be clear, there was a degree of hyperbole to the blog author’s condom comment. NewSpring is not handing out condoms at Fuse. That would have caused a lot more of a firestorm I would imagine.
@ MW –
As false prophets often do, James Duncan is misleading you by providing incorrect information.
“Opening condoms and endorsing fornication in church demands that we keep our lips sealed?”
No one at NewSpring, and certainly not Perry Noble, has ever endorsed sinful fornication. In fact, Perry Noble, from the stage, has openly, frequently condemned sex (oops, sorry.. “fornication”) outside of marriage. He does, however, endorse a healthy sex life inside of marriage.
In addition, Duncan is referring to a graphic or a display that showed open condoms. No one is passing out condoms at NewSpring.
In the “Beautiful” series, Perry Noble took a minute to direct the message to the teenagers in the room. He said (I’m paraphrasing here) – “SEX IS AWESOME… inside of marriage. Outside of marriage, it is always destructive, it always complicates things, and it’s always sin… It damages your soul.” During that message, he clearly advocated for abstinence until marriage.
In the “No Perfect People Allowed” series, in one of my favorite NS sermons entitled “Forgive and Live”, Noble talks about people who should not get up and take communion, which included those that are unwilling to repent sin in their lives, including people that are having sex outside of marriage. He illustrated that group with an EMail from a married woman who told PN that she brings her lover to NS to “experience what she experiences every week.” Perry said (again, paraphrasing), “He’s not your lover, he’s your sinner, and what you’re experiencing every week is a show. You’re not experiencing the presence of God because the presence of God would tell you that what you’re doing is wrong… You’re living in sin, and you need to quit.”
NewSpring consistently gets the important stuff right (sin is sin, Jesus is Lord). Duncan refuses to acknowledge that, however, and continues to focus on insignificant details that he finds offensive.
So MW, should we wait until the problem becomes “public and blatant” before addressing it? Isn’t that a little late? The damage has been done at that point. If you are wondering why the rebuke has to be public, their is plenty of exlpanation for that on this board.
And if Highway to Hell is appropriate for an Easter morning worship service, then what is next? Of course, you can justify anything. Apparently, cussing is fine too, so you say. So what about songs with explicit lyrics? Is that good for a worship service? As long as it can be tied in some way?
I am tied to no tradition. My standard is the Bible. The great justifier for all NS’ers is that people are being saved. However, if Highway to Hell and swearing is the means, I would seriously question how is that new beleiver going to persue righteousness.
Hi Emily. So Duncan is a false prophet for (in your view) misrepresenting Perry Noble?
If you don’t realize what an unhealthy view that is of Noble, there is nothing I can do to help.
Oh, James Downing, I guess I misunderstood the rules. I thought we just threw that term around on this board with little to no evidence.
My bad.
Way to focus on the insignificant details of the post, while ignoring the substance, though. James Duncan has taught you well.
MW:
You wrote: “God’s truth can be found somewhere in everything.” This would be hilarious, if it weren’t so unintelligible and false. God’s truth can be found in truth. Not lies, not half-truths, not hypocrisy, not sin, not evil, not false teaching. Check out the NT, especially Paul’s letters. Apparently, God’s truth is actually only found in specific places.
You wrote: “That is not to say that there aren’t a LOT of things I haven’t seen and probably a lot that they are doing that is dangerous and wrong, but I’m just saying that if something doesn’t need to be mentioned publicly then it shouldn’t.”
I’m confused about which part of this statement to take seriously, the first or the second. It seems to me that if you’ve seen things that are dangerous and wrong, than you’d run to the rooftops yourself. Which is it? Rooftops or not?
Also, the bit about context is ironic. NS never shows the context. They brag about AC/DC and other things, and then when someone is offended the reply is: “you didn’t listen to the sermon.” To which I reply: you didn’t brag about the sermon. The public pays attention to what NS promotes. Don’t blame PP for focusing on what NS is promoting.
As JDuncan said, it’s disingenuous for NS-ers to get angry about people calling NS rebellious, when this is their M.O. Shouldn’t they welcome this attention? That was the goal, right?
Emily, I don’t consider calling someone a false prophet insignificat at all, and I beleieve if you read the bible you’ll come to the same conclusion.
In the old Testament, False prophets were put to death. That’s pretty significant.
You called James Duncan a false prophet because you don’t like some of the things he says about Perry Noble. Do you not see the error in that?
James Duncan called Perry Noble a false prophet, Downing. Do you also have a problem with that? Do you see the error in that?
Where did he call him that?
@ Downing:
Entry on 27 May 2009 that was clarified that same day, “Today I argued that Perry Noble sounds like a false prophet”.
And since we play games with our words on this board, I didn’t say JDunc was a false prophet, I said, “Like a false prophet,…”, which is essentially equivalent to JDunc’s statement on the 27th.
As I also indicated previously, all of Duncan’s followers on this board throw “false prophet” around flippantly to refer to leaders at NewSpring, and if you have a problem with that term, you should take it up with all of them as well.
1.) He didn’t call him a false prophet. The post you are referencing is one that was using sarcasm to show how silly Perry’s supporters were for getting so upset over the Twitter post.
2.) In the post that he was referring to in saying he “sounds likle a false prophet” he did a very good job of pointing out the error in Perry’s view on “vision”. If you disagree with what Duncan was saying in that post, it would be more beneficial to take it up there, rather to to just call him names here.
3.) You ask if I would have a propblem with Duncan calling Perry a false prophet: Well, I would listen to his argument and then decide. If it was perfectly baseless (like your accusation against Duncan) i would take issue with it. If you look at the post from the previous day about Simoen, I did take issue, and argued that Perry was not a false prophet, just biblically ignorant.
4.) I don’t see all the throwing around of “false prophet” that you indicate. Perhaps take your emotions down a little, and read what is actually said.
5.) At least if they were calling them false prophets, it would be because they misrepresent GOD, not Perry Noble.
First Tommy, Your logic is ridiculous. You just mentioned sins that are not truths so therefore they aren’t what I mean by “finding truth in anything.” However, in music, movies, literature, etc. we can find all kinds of truth. Some much less truth than others, but none-the-less truth can be found in every THING not sin but THING!!Got it? good. Let’s move on.
James, I think you need to put your walls down for a moment and think linearly here. You tend to talk in circles and never get the point or context of the persons comment. You did the same thing to Emily. Nitpicking is for old women that like to gossip. Look at the big picture and see what we are saying.
Here, I’ll put my argument in a more clear and consise way.
1) heretics – name names and rebuke publically. That is biblical
2) sin – depending on if it is private or public you privately or publicly rebuke – That is biblical
3) Doctrine – none of us have all our ducks in a row. So many of us want to put God in a nice little packaged box and systematize Him but like god showed Ezekiel, He will not live in man’s box and man cannot fathom the deep and infinite works of God. It’s like a baby trying to understand bio-chemistry. Won’t work. There are clear cut things in scripture (Christ save, Triune God, Infallible word of God, Ten Commandments etc.) that are laid out in scripture that to go against is considered heresy.
The outer rim doctrines (mode of baptism, who we baptize, what kind of music should be played in church, slang language, etc.) are doctrines that should not bare the same weight as the core doctrines. Therefore, we don’t deem someone a heretic for believing differently than we do about such things. Most of these outer rim doctrines are man’s doctrines (such as do we use a piano or a guitar in church) not God’s. This is where we let go of our grip when it comes to dealing with other brothers in Christ. I am suggesting that most everything mentioned on this blog is outer rim doctrines that need to be dealt with in a different venue. Some of the things NS is doing may be unwise (to some at least) but they are not unbiblical or heretical.
As Emily pointed out, some things are taken out of context.
By the way, thank you for the clarification Emily.
My original statement: “As false prophets often do, James Duncan is misleading you by providing incorrect information.”
It no more calls James Duncan a false prophet than “…Perry Noble sounds like a false prophet”. Do false prophets not mislead by providing incorrect, but enticing, information? When did I say James Duncan was a false prophet? And when did I say he was a false prophet because he misrepresented Perry Noble?
(The obnoxious “can’t you read?” questions are also a favorite of your friends, here. I picked it up from them.)
Maybe you should check your emotions, Downing.
I just want to clarify one thing. I’m trying to look at this blog objectively. I’m not condemning the desire to discuss issues. I simply want proof that this is going to either
a) shoot a wolf – meaning if they are really heretics that the evidence is clear and we call it like it is or,
b) encourage and edify the body of Christ – meaning if they are not heretics and if these things are taken out of context and if these things are less cut and dry in scripture that we leave the names out and discuss the issues. I think I would side with James on a lot of what he is saying. I may not, but I’d like to discuss them without naming brothers in Christ and showing the world our private parts and giving them more ammunition, or more reason to say “I’ll never believe that stuff because they can’t even get along in their own religion.
Downing, you mentioned something about not waiting until they are full blown heretics. I don’t disagree with you but you don’t set up a blog about it. You go directly to them and plead with them. Blogs don’t change heart. Relationships do. Warn a brother if he is going down the wrong road but in the right way, lovingly and gently with only the intent to edify the body of Christ.
Note: PLEASE LOOK AT MY CONTEXT AND DO NOT NITPICK! THANK YOU!
MW, I don’t know if you are referring to me or Duncan when you say James. I’m assuming Duncan?
Emily, so we agree Neither James Duncan or Perry Noble is a false prophet. Now stop being so snotty.
I’m sorry, I said Downing instead of Tommy. I’m really sorry!! Wrong comment name
forgive me
MW – we have discussed at length here why it is impossible to go directly to these people. They won’t allow it. The only avenue is a public forum.
No problem
Downing:
That helps me out a ton. Thanks! I’m new so I’m trying to figure out some things before I start commenting on the actual issues. I don’t want to give my opinion on a blog if there is a better way to go about edifying my brothers. This helps me want to discuss the issues more.
@ Emily
“Way to focus on the insignificant details of the post, while ignoring the substance, though. James Duncan has taught you well.”
Substance, at least on the issues we are discussing on this blog, is something you have yet to touch on. Your posts just ramble and ramble, and you seem quite angry. Maybe you should bow out if debate causes you to become this upset, because your posts give me the impression that your veins are popping out of your forehead as you type.
A couple of things quickly.
MW, I wasn’t saying the were actually handing condoms out. Here’s the post. It was a video advertisement played in church and posted online that showed someone preparing for sex by opening a condom. The text accompanying the image can only be interpreted to condone premarital sex. I challenged someone to tell me how it can be interpreted any other way–a challenge that was never answered, btw.
James Downing gets it right on the false prophet thing. Ditto what he said.
Here we go with the context thing again. I link to everything I reference. That’s the context. I welcome everyone to go and read or listen for themselves. If I’m linking to what I criticize, do you think I want someone to go there and see that I’m being dumb (Translation department excepted)?
Sorry James, I didn’t get all the links. The ones I went to didn’t have enough context in it to form an opinion.
@ Sara –
You’ve got it wrong. I think this is the funniest blog on the internet.
@ JDunc: “The text accompanying the image can only be interpreted to condone premarital sex.” That’s the only interpretation? Are you kidding?
Captions: “If you were ever told that sex is wrong/dirty/doesn’t hurt anyone.. you were lied to”. Sex isn’t wrong or dirty if it is done in marriage, which I’m 100% positive was the focus of the series. The third caption completely invalidates your entire interpretation. How can the 20 second video taken out of context of the series condone premarital sex if it points out that sex hurts people?
The video supports the PN quote I referenced earlier — “SEX IS AWESOME… inside of marriage. Outside of marriage, it is always destructive, it always complicates things, and it’s always sin… It damages your soul.” It’s prefaced by PN impersonating a teenager, saying “‘I know what you’re going to tell me, Pastor Perry. You’re going to tell me that sex is dirty, that it’s wrong, and that if I have sex, I’m going to get pregnant and get a disease and die.’ But I’m not going to tell you that. I’m going to tell you that SEX IS AWESOME…”.
Let me try and get this straight.. the <20 second video promo that contains 2 out of 3 slides that could possibly be misinterpreted as condoning premarital sex completely discounts what was said in the series and what is said frequently on the stage Sunday mornings at NewSpring?
I agree Emily. I know for a fact that they weren’t condoning pre-marital sex. To say sex is awesome doesn’t equal sex outside of marriage is awesome. The billboards and titles to these sermons are given to raise interest and then preach the truth about the subject. I’ve heard from Coopers mouth at lunch one day that He had a problem with a Young life game that encouraged kissing (the opposite sex). He’s not, nor is Perry for pre-marital anything. I actually had a great discussion with Brad about all of that.
MW and Emily,
Did either of you actually read my argument on the Durex ad? For lovers of context, the whole argument was that the ad lacked context. I acknowledge that BC was going to correct the message in his series, but until then, the ad reads very badly. Sure, sex within marriage is no problem, but the ad isn’t directed at married people. Sex, for them, is wrong.
There’s also the whole aspect of them undermining previous parental and pastoral teaching on sex.
Nice job with the “can’t you read?” reply. Love it.
“The text accompanying the image can only be interpreted to condone premarital sex.” No. Wrong. Unsupported.
“Opening condoms and endorsing fornication in church demands that we keep our lips sealed?” Didn’t happen.
JDunc, don’t you teach your students to (a) start the intro with a hook to draw the listener in and (b) provide more than one independent source to back up a claim?
That’s not what I was implying, Emily. You say that I’m wrong without actually engaging any of my arguments.
Yes, a good introduction is useful, but this was not followed by any other substance to give it context for at least a couple more weeks. When it was played in church and posted online, it was not an introduction; it was the whole thing.
JDunc, you said: “Your comments give the impression that there’s a lot on this blog that you haven’t seen… Opening condoms and endorsing fornication in church demands that we keep our lips sealed?”, which was incredibly misleading and directed to someone new to your blog.
Accusing NewSpring of “endorsing fornication” is a pretty heavy charge, JDunc, and that’s what I take issue with. If NewSpring ALWAYS condemns sex outside of marriage but once put out a 20 second promo that contained two slides that lent themselves to misinterpretation…. how is that endorsing fornication? I could pull out quotes from 10 sermons that supports that NewSpring does the exact opposite of your charge, yet you throw out your charge based on one promo?
Most every time I read one of MW’s comments, I think, “Yeah, that’s my opinion on NewSpring and/or PajamaPages, too!”
Keep making your points, MW. You appear to be a better thinker and writer than I am, so I’ll just sit back and watch for awhile.
MW:
Two things:
You called my logic ridiculous, but then don’t explain how. You avoided each of my points – which were based on your words and logic. Can you please explain or quote me to show how my logic fails?
Out of the various things I mentioned, here’s one of my points that I’ve posted again, hoping you’ll reply.
You wrote: “That is not to say that there aren’t a LOT of things I haven’t seen and probably a lot that they are doing that is dangerous and wrong, but I’m just saying that if something doesn’t need to be mentioned publicly then it shouldn’t.”
I’m confused about which part of this statement to take seriously, the first or the second. It seems to me that if you’ve seen things that are dangerous and wrong, than you’d run to the rooftops yourself. Which is it? Rooftops or not?
And the context thing is laughable, as JDuncan pointed out (see today 4:45pm). Let’s try and focus on the substance and context of our posts.
Emily, you are correct. I threw out that charge based on one promo because for those 20 seconds they were endorsing fornication. I even qualified my criticism by acknowledging in the original post that the message in the promo was not what Cooper believed (that’s called context, I think). The criticism was focused on that promo, and I stand by it today.
Look, even if you run that promo with additional context, it still is very problematic. “If you ever were told [fill in the blank], you were lied to.” Breathtaking.
MW was complaining that I was being too critical. My response was to point out a few egregious examples of things that I assume he’d be willing to criticize himself.
Tommy Tommy Tommy! hahaha! I explained it already. read my comment before you comment back about what I said.
on the quotes you mentioned you are nitpicking a bit but I’ll explain…. again….
Matthew 18 gives us good reason to believe that personal one on one rebuke is better than a public one. Now, I know I am isogeting that a bit so before you get upset and nitpick more I’ll say this. From what I’ve studied on church discipline there are various ways to handle various sins. Given that and given that what I ultimately mean by Dangerous (probably shouldn’t have used the word wrong, that was bad communication) is that sometimes they do things that aren’t very WISE. Not necessarily unbiblical, just unwise.
The Modern Church (this is a play on words just to let you know) has a tendency to call things sin that aren’t sin. I was just at a conference where Mark Driscoll told everyone that Sunday School isn’t a good thing to have if you are trying to reach the lost. I won’t explain why he said that, just go to DesiringGod.org to find out why, but there were people there that freaked out when he said that. One guy yelled from the audience, “that’s wrong!”
OK, there is nothing in scripture that mentions Sunday school yet some people were saying that he was wrong for saying that.
A better example might be smoking. I’ve heard countless times from countless Christians that smoking is a sin. I guess I missed the scripture verse that said thou shall not smoke.
Smoking isn’t a sin, but it’s also not very wise. We like to take things that are not wise and call them sins. These kinds of things are better dealt with one on one or through a discussion. I feel like some of the things I’m hearing from some of you guys are things that MAY be unwise, but not sinful (ACDC, Condoms, Billboards, etc.) None of which are mentioned in scripture. I like the dialog but not the accusations that are going on. I may not think it is very wise to do any of these but I won’t call them sin or set up a blog to rebuke a brother or a church over.
Downing was talking on the next post down about how he didn’t agree with New Spring having that large youth building. I would disagree. I think if you have the money to do cool things then that is awesome and the church should be at the forfront of cool stuff. We should be having the most fun. However, he can’t call it a sin (he never did, but I’m using this analogy for argument sake). If he called it a sin then I would kindly tell him that he has a warped view of scripture and probably needs to reread it. Let’s hope he doesn’t call it a sin.
I have been reading more blogs and still haven’t found anything that I would call a blatant sin yet. I’ve seen a lot of things mentioned that may be unwise at time, or maybe not well thought through, or maybe they are, I’m undecided and would like to know more behind why they do some of the things they do. They may have an awesome reason for it. I’d like to stick around and dialog about it more though and see. I may ask Brad next time I see him about some of this stuff too and see why they do some of these things. I’m curious. One thing I have seen is that they don’t do anything half way and they put a lot of thought into what they do.
MW,
BAMF to describe the sanctuary is not blatant enough for you? That may explain your perspective on this whole enterprise. What would be blatant for you? (You sound like Seth who keeps moving the line of offense to always make sure NS is on the good side of it.)
A couple of people have also said this on the Turnstile post, but why must we present church and Jesus as being more fun than anything else? Isn’t that deceptive advertising? How much fun was Christianity for Peter, or Job, or Wycliffe, or millions of others? Did you notice Piper’s tweet the other day about how the religious freedom we enjoy in America is not normal?
If you sell Christ to youth as being the most fun, you cheapen what you’re promoting. You also change the argument and put the church in competition with Hollywood and the X-Box. I think many of the excesses in the Turnstile Church are precisely because they have to increase the emotional stimulation that’s necessary for Christianity to keep being fun. To employ an intentional oxymoron, it’s a foundation for immaturity.
I think you also sell young people into trouble later in their lives when they go through the dark nights that always come. If you’re not having fun any more, can you be sure you’re still saved?
Christianity is attractive because it is true, not because it’s fun.
MW,
Re. your Driscoll/Sunday School example. You’ve been making a distinction between things that are unwise and things that are sinful. How is that you assume that the guy who thought Driscoll was wrong was saying what Driscoll was proposing was a sin? Can’t you be wrong without sinning?
Re. what Driscoll seems to be saying, I’d probably agree with him, even though I’d try to defend Sunday School from the two of you. If you are a Turnstile Church, you have no need for Sunday School. If you are a church that takes the feeding of believers seriously, it is surely a good thing.
By the way, if you’re going to wipe out Sunday School, shouldn’t you also eliminate youth groups?
Downing made a good point earlier (1:35) about distinguishing between big and little error. It reminded me of this Chesterton quote I included in the denominations post. It’s worth repeating.
MW:
2 things
1) If you are really in favor of private rebuking, shouldn’t you follow your own advice and contact JDuncan in private, rather than on his blog multiple times? It seems you actually prefer public rebuke.
2) Since, according to you, truth can be found in everything …. you can find truth in Pajama Pages, right? If so, where?
Ben–does it really matter where he goes to church? Or are you trying to prove a point.
I’ve visited NewSpring church and will never darken the doors again. A visting pastor was there the first time–somebody named King and he thought he was funny with his comments, but who cares how he feels about bugs.
The next time Mr. Noble the King himself was in attendance. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. What a waste, as much of the sermon was “I”, “I” and “I”.
what happened to God. Music that belongs in church, not in a rock band. A lady was sitting next to me and I asked her how do you get to shake Mr. Nobles hand. She shrunk back and very timidly said, you don’t. He doesn’t talk to his congreation except while preaching, he is kept away from everyone and we are not to ask.
Now to me that reeks of a “God mentality”. There is no man on earth that shouldn’t interact with his people. The people that are paying his salary. This is so sad.
Pajama Pages has been dead on about the less than great NewSpring church and Perry Noble. They don’t forgive, they throw stones, if you are not one of them they work thier best to break you down and throw you out. After asking to meet Mr. Noble, I was also told not to return. There are plenty of churches out there that will make me feel warm and fuzzy and get to shake hands with my pastor, but you are no longer welcome here at NewSpring. So I guess that says it all. You ask questions, you are thrown out with the bath water.
MW – Sin begins in the heart. Most actions (with notable exception) are not gonna be absolutely prohibited. The sin usually comes into play in the motivation behind that action.
For instance, American curse words are obviously not mentioned in scripture, so just putting the four letters together and pronouncing them isn’t neccesarily sin. However, am I saying it to condemn someone…to be accepted by some group…just being rebellious? Most of the motivations you can imagine are probably gonna make that action sinful.
Of course, you have the whole idea of putting a stumbling block in your brother’s path…I wonder how that might relate to sexually charged advertisements, etc.
And by the way – why are we teying to dance on the line of sin? Shouldn’t we instead be persuing holiness?
I do have a problem with the F word because it’s sexually vulgar. Scripture speaks against that. I don’t say it and don’t like when other do either. Other slang language I don’t necessarily mind listening to because I was in construction for 6 years. I don’t see scripture going against slang language ANYWHERE! I try to refrain from cussing but I’m not going to make a big deal out of it. I don’t think it was good for Perry to use that kind of language or even hint at it because it was language dealing with sexual vulgarity. I don’t agree with that kind of language no. I don’t know where you got that idea from.
I don’t know if he said it out right or if he just wrote BAMF but either way I don’t agree with that one. I think scripture is pretty clear on it.
I think language should never be used flippantly, but always pointedly. There is a time and place for cussing but it better be pointed. For example when Paul and Jesus use the word dunghill which is translated literally as pile of S#$%. Scripture uses nasty language sometimes (Isaiah 64:6 referring to a bloody tampon) so I think that it has its place and gives the reader an image that won’t leave their mind, but scripture is always pointed about it.
Tommy
This is a public blog so if I were rebuking publically then that would be biblical. But I’m not rebuking. I was inquiring and asking questions and saying what I thought. A rebuke should lead someone to repentance. Once I found out that NS wouldn’t listen to ya’ll I dropped the questions and started commenting. I’m fine with this now…
You have a bad habit of not reading my comments and making accusations. Like I asked you before already. read my comments. Look back a little ways on this blog post and you will see that I told Downey that I feel better now that I know they won’t let you go to them. I’m cool now, k? awesome!
Tommy, to your second question, I never said that I couldn’t. I like this blog and that there is some serious dialog going on. I don’t agree with anyone on here completely but ya’ll all have things that I agree with at times and I like that. I’m not one sided. There are times when I will not agree with you or Duncan or Downey or whoever, but there are times that I will agree completely. I agree with Duncan being upset at the F word. I think it is unbiblical and not to mention unwise to use in the south. It doesn’t edify or encourage. So I’m with Duncan 100% on that one.
Duncan
About the Sunday school thing. There is no connection between sunday school and youth group. The point that was being made by Driscoll is that it is too inward focused and keeps people from visiting your church because who wants to sit through a sunday school class at a church you’ve never been to and feel awkward the whole time. I tend to agree. He made the suggestion of moving Sunday school to a Thursday night or some other night during the week and also promote small groups. Both of those focus inwardly but also leave room for the non-believer to come to church without stressing about sitting through a sunday school class.
I said in my comment that the reaction was “that’s wrong.” To imply that something is wrong is not to say that it is unwise. I’m pretty sure that he meant that it was wrong. because that is what he said. I like to take language literally unless I have reason to believe that they are being sarcastic or know the person well enough to think that maybe they just used the wrong word. So yes, I think he meant that it was wrong.
Downing, read the post I wrote just after yours. That will explain my view on cussing. I agree with what you are saying. I’m not against what you are saying at all and think cussing, if not used pointedly and with a purpose causes stumbling blocks, makes people think you are too dumb to come up with a better word, and sometimes it can be sin if used to discourage or hurt someone.
I am not dancing any lines. You don’t know me well enough to say that I am not pursuing holiness. Just because I make a case for something doesn’t mean that I am dancing lines. Please don’t judge without knowing me first and if you are going to judge then make sure you are right first and that you are pursuing holiness with all of your heart so that you don’t beat me over the head with a log. I hope by telling me to pursue holiness that you too are doing the same (which would include not judging something you don’t know fully about).
Aside from all of that…
I must say that I am really beginning to enjoy this blog. I like that you guys are so passionate!!! I can’t tell you how much I long for passionate friends sometimes. There is nothing worse to me than someone who is passive and careless. I just want to commend everyone of you and thank you for your passions. That is the kind of thing that changes the world. I hope everyone of you will continue to keep your passions and continue to use that passion to pursue Christ.
Duncan
I see now where you got the idea that I thought BAMF was ok. I guess you got it from the comment where I said I have no problem with cussing. I wasn’t referring to BAMF. Actually I missed that one somewhere. I just know people have criticized them before for cuss words on a movie clip they showed one sunday morning. They were pretty mild cuss words, in fact I think the only cuss word was ass (can I say that on this blog? Bleep it if you need to). It was just something I had on my mind when I wrote that comment
MW:
Gotta be a record to post 7 comments in a row on one topic. Sorry to break your streak. But 7 is such a nice biblically significant number.
First, I’ve read your posts closely. Perhaps too closely for your taste?
Here’s my analysis since you’ve joined in the discussions several days ago. You chided JDuncan for publicly calling out NS, informing him to do so biblically (which in your view was to be in private). But, your critique of him was done publicly.
You don’t see the irony? I’m being kind with the use of the term irony here, since what you’ve done is probably best called hypocritical, but I don’t want to offend your biblical sensibilities in regards to public criticisms.
Shouldn’t you have simply contacted JDuncan privately?
I love that I can check back in on this thing in 5 minutes and theres a new comment that’s awesome!
Tommy,
I don’t think you were getting what I’m saying. If I was rebuking (which I’m not, especially now that I know that you can’t get a private seat with these guys) then I was doing so on a HIS blog, not mine to the world. If Duncan goes on their blog and they discuss what is going on in their church and Duncan rebukes them on their blog then I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. They opened the forum, they want to know what people think.
However, If there is something that is an outer rim doctrine that we disagree with then I don’t really see the need to set up a blog if we can get a private venue. Private venues change hearts, not blogs.
Now, I’ve heard you can’t get a private venue, and there is no blog that they have discussing these things so NOW I have no problem.
I’m on Duncan’s blog (public) and he’s discussing these things. If I inquire as to why he is not doing this in private and don’t get a straight answer for two days then I’m going to assume (maybe wrongly) that he doesn’t care to change their hearts but he just wants to brow beat them. I see no that that is not the case. If I were to say something on a blog that he set up discussing these things and I don’t agree with him and I rebuke him on his public blog then it is warranted by scripture. Paul did it to peter. Public sin = public rebuke. If (IF) New Spring is blatantly going against scripture in public then you can rebuke them in public all you want and I’ll support you 100% (as I said 2 or 3 times maybe more before.)
If they are doing things that are just UNWISE then there is no need to lift the skirt of the church to the world for them to see our quarrels. “avoid foolish arguments.”
I was simply trying to get a grasp on what was going on here. If Duncan was calling them heretics then I’d like to know why. He’s not (I don’t think) If they were then rebuke them publically. Name names. If these are just ideas we disagree with that have no baring on salvation then let’s get a word with them privately and try to help them out and edify them. Now that I know that that is impossible, I don’t mind discussing these things.
Do you get it now? I’ve honestly explained this for the 4th time to you. I hope you got it. If not, oh well. I’m not going to keep explaining it. Sorry. Let’s talk about something else. Let’s discuss some more issues.
Duncan –
I loved the blog post about Simeon! That was awesome! That’s the way I’ve always seen it too. I like your reasoning and I agree that reason should trump a wild description that Perry gave. Excellent logic!
MW,
It looks like you’re becoming a PP convert; it usually doesn’t take most people long (heh). As for what I thought you thought about BAMF, it had nothing to do with a specific view you had about cussing, just your comment that you hadn’t seen anything that you would call blatant sin.
I’m glad the information about the unavailability of a private forum has changed your perspective on PP. However, I did say that in the original post.
Remember this bit?
Trusting me the first time might have saved us a few thousand words. As Rush says, Don’t doubt me!
MW:
For fear of another 7 posts in a row, I’m going to simply say that I agree with JDuncan’s 11:33 post.
Hey MW – just for clarity, I wasn’t specifically saying that you were trying to walk the line on sin, or not persuing righteousness.
I said why are WE…and shouldn’t WE…Not at all a personal accusation on you. More a comment on the state of the church, myself included. Sorry for the confusion.
Duncan,
I must have missed that comment. If I had seen that I would have been satisfied. I must have either missed it or read it wrong at the time. Thanks though.
And yes, I am becoming a PP convert. haha! Like I said earlier, I love the passion here. I was telling the kids today in Sunday school that I would rather deal with someone passionate then someone passive, even if they are passionately against me. It means there is some form of life in them.
Sorry Downey! I read it as if it were pointed at me. Sometimes blogs are bad with interpreting emotion.
Tommy
Don’t worry, I said I was done talking about it so you can have the last word if you want. I’m done.
James Duncan, and everyone else -
I’d hate for you to miss Noble’s blog post this evening. Here are two of his bullet points that I think you’ll approve of:
“- One of the things I am continually having poured into me is that THEOLOGY must drive METHODOLGY…it can’t be reversed…if it is the church will be in a constant state of “I really screwed that up!”
- Another thing that is continually being reinforced is that Scripture, not strategy, must be surpreme! (NOT saying AT ALL that strategy isn’t important…but it MUST be placed in submission to the Scriptures…just like our lives!)”
He’s right.
Definitely!
That was unexpected.
He must have really been listening when he met Driscoll.
Good for both of them.
We’ll see. Words are easy. Carrying through may not be.
I’m surprised you are a big Driscoll fan.
JD,
I’m not a fan. I singled him out for some criticism on the scatology post.
It seems, though, that people I like, like him, so he gets a little bit of credit from that.
Everyone always credits him with great theology, but when that isn’t carried out in action, I don’t see the merit. Hopefully Piper and crew can beat some sense into him.