Reformers vs. Deformers
Posted: May 6th, 2009 | Author: James Duncan | Tags: Doctrine, Reformation | 38 Comments »In his typically nuanced way, Perry Noble announced to the world this weekend that he has started the second Reformation. Besides its self confidence and boldness, the claim seems just a little ignorant of history. As I asked a few days ago, is this really a reformation or a deformation?
Given the stated goals of Noble and his friends, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. Rather than building up the church, Noble has wanted to strip it down and make it into something else.
We wanted to start a church that was stripped of religious traditions and merely preach Jesus Christ.
Dismantling something is easy. I can take my car’s engine apart. I can even be passionate about it and have a great vision about the speedster I’ll finish with, but if I dismantle too much, it will stop working. If I don’t know what I’m doing when I try to repair it, I’ll probably end up with a mess.
If you start to dismantle something, it takes remarkable effort to re-form it so that it’s better than when you started. It’s more likely that you will end up de-forming the original work.
The combination of wanting to dismantle the historical evangelical church, and a general ignorance of church history and doctrine does not give one high hopes for the outcome of Noble’s reformation. Here’s why some of these leaders may turn out to be Deformers rather than Reformers.
- The Reformers were ready to be corrected. The Deformers don’t want to know what you think. Although Luther is famous for the stand he made at Worms (Here I stand, etc), his defense was tempered with an invitation to his accusers to correct him from Scripture. At the height of his persuasive powers, Luther demonstrated a humble willingness to change his position. Said Luther,
Since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.
Modern leaders routinely brag about how they don’t listen to criticism and go to great lengths to set up institutional filters to protect them from anyone with substantive disagreements. Even people with minor disagreements find themselves unwelcome. Noble has this quote from Rick Warren on his desk:
Ignore ‘them’ and get on with whatever God has told you to do!
- The Reformers wanted to strip man-made revelation from the church. The Deformers depend on it. Luther fought against man-made tradition. The modern church is adding man-made “vision” to demand obedience from followers. As Noble has said, the leader’s vision is what people are to believe in.
People DO BELIEVE in the vision God has placed IN you.
- The Reformers began preaching the whole Bible. The Deformers began preaching the whole TV Guide. The Reformers emphasized a return to verse-by-verse preaching. If all the Bible is inspired by God and profitable, none of it should be ignored. Their return to the whole Bible was in contrast to the Catholic Church’s careful use of only selected portions of Scripture for preaching. Visit any number of modern churches and you’ll find sermon series titled after television series or other pop culture references: America’s Idol, Girls Gone Wild, Mythbusters, Bringing Sexy Back, etc. What do these series suggest about what these churches use as a primary text? Entertainment Tonight or the Bible?
- The Reformers constructed careful creeds. The Deformers’ only creed is deeds. The Reformation started with Luther’s carefully constructed 95 statements of belief. The need for pure doctrine motivated a flurry of creeds that we still find useful today, including Augsburg, Heidelberg and Westminster. The Roman church responded with its own at Trent. Modern leaders think they know better and want to replace the old-fashioned creeds with a passion for passion. Creeds have historically been created as firewalls against error. Rick Warren thinks they’re unimportant. Noble can’t be bothered and dismissed them as idols.
It reminds me NOT to get caught up in church politics and/or debates over theological issues that have caused controversy for hundreds of years.
Thinking you can do without them is foolish and dangerous.
- The Reformers were learned men. The Deformers are self-described ignoramuses. Luther was a college professor, a lawyer and a theologian. His 95 Theses were originally intended as an invitation to an academic debate. He challenged the leaders of his church to “go deeper,” if you will. Perry Noble regularly inveighs against seminary, often referring to it as cemetery. These leaders don’t want to know, and shame anyone as selfish who wants to know more. Noble, who shepherds 15,000 souls, boasted of his ignorance.
I did just about everything you could do in a church and in all of that God was preparing me to one day lead a church in which I could understand the people that worked with me rather than spout out theology and ideas and methodology in which I knew nothing about.
That sounds exactly like what a Luther or a Calvin might have said.
Similar Posts:
- Don’t take my word, take Noble’s: Reformation is coming
- Perceptive points on parsing Pastor Perry
- Four Pajama Axioms
- How can he be sure it’s not a deformation?
- We retort. You decide.
I would like to just throw this out there, but maybe the whole point of the ‘new reformation’ or whatever they are calling it is to get away from what the original reformation is all about, therefore, there will be major differences between what Luther thought and did verses what is going on today. So therefore, everything they say, SHOULDN’T sound like something Luther would say. If you changing something you don’t want to sound like the people who created/started what you changing.
On numnber 2, that makes no sense, what he said was that people believe in the vision GOD PLACED in you, therefore, its not your vision but a vision from God.
On the quote from Rick Warren thats on Perry’s desk, look at what Nehemiah does in chapter 6, verse 3. He was carrying on what God has placed in him to do, and because the enemy wanted to distract him and get him away from his work, he told them no. He continually came under attack and either deffended himself or made no effort to let the enemy distract him from the work he was doing.
Number 4, the quote you made mentions nothing about the deformer’s creed being deeds. it talks about taking away the politics and theological issues that divide the church, just like websites and blogs where the people are Christain yet they attack other churches and Christians who are doing the work of God, changing lives, and where people are getting saved.
Number 3, yes they name the series creatively, but last time I looked, that doesn’t go against the Bible. Also, these messages that have “TV Guide” names range from every book for the Bible. So they are preaching the Bible, names don’t mean the Bible is being preached.
And number 5, im pretty sure he isn’t boasting of ignorance, he is simply stating what he has done. Again, if you are reforming something, you dont copy and be like the person whom created the thing you are reforming. SO for this to be a reformation, the leaders of today can be like and act like the leaders who did the first reformation.
Seth, you exactly nailed it when you said “maybe the whole point of the ‘new reformation’ or whatever they are calling it is to get away from what the original reformation is all about.”
On that, I think we agree.
Let’s see, the original reformation was all about only Scripture, only faith, only grace, only Christ, and for only God.
This is why PN’s reformation talk makes us nervous. If it’s different than the original reformation, what is his all about?
His is about making the church all about Jesus. Helping people to follow God and not follow what other people want. I wouldn’t call what he is doing a reformation rather a refocusing.
“Although Luther is famous for the stand he made at Worms (Here I stand, etc), his defense was tempered with an invitation to his accusers to correct him from Scripture.”
You just explained why Noble and many other great leaders in the church set up boundaries for themselves to not be exposed to criticims such as this blog. I don’t see you bringing anything to PN in love or doing so with scriptural references. I see you assuming a lot of things about people and events in which you have no first hand knowledge.
Let me assure you of something. If your main objective was to show love and mercy to PN and Newspring and you were to privately bring scriptural references against the things he was doind then he would listen to you and explain himself to you. Blatant attacks against him are not going to do him, you, or most importantly God’s kingdom any good. He could argue with you all day but at the end of the day he would not convince you that what he was doing was right and he really doesn’t have to. You can’t argue that God is not moving in his church.
I do have a questions for you, however. What is your goal with this blog?
All about Jesus? Really? These are broad strokes you’re painting. The assumption is that no other church is focused on Jesus, so Noble needs to reform the current church to focus on Jesus. This is quite a claim, but the evidence doesn’t support your claim.
I can’t decide if he’s making the church all about A) himself or B) the audience. I’ll go with B: He appears to be making it all about non-Christian visitors. This seems to be the focus and audience of his sermons, the services, and the music.
When you divert your attention from the triune God (not just Jesus), then odd things are bound to happen. What if the services were not focused on the visitors, but rather God? In other words the intention of the service was to glorify and praise God, rather than make visitors think church is “cool” or “different”? A lot would change with NS.
The other reason I’m inclined to choose option B is that NS has no discipleship program. They are not adequately training their people to become disciples (Matthew 28:19). The focus is actually about those who don’t go to NS (yet), rather than training Christians to grow and mature. This information comes from people who wish NS would promote discipleship more. It’s the “only milk, no meat” problem. – Heh! that may be a good bumper sticker.
Have you never been to a NS service? I is about God and done to glorify God. The reason it seems to be about the people, its because it is clear in scripture that God is all about people, that Jesus came and met people where they were at in their lives. He ate with tax collectors, he talked with the samaritian woman at the well, he feed the five thousand, and it doesn’t say how many of the 5000 Jesus fed were followers of him and how many weren’t, that didnt matter, he went to where they were and met their needs and NS is simply doing the samething.
Also, shouldn’t the services be about bringing people in so they can hear the gospel of Jesus and be saved? isn’t that the first part of the great comission? If nobody comes to that church, is it still a church or fulfilling its mission?
They have home groups, where the real growth and fellowship takes place. Also, the view about dicdipleship is that it is the believers job to read the Bible and listen to the Holy Spirit. Not that the church spoon feed people and then they go off and don’t learn anything on their own. That is how the disciple people and it is an effective system. Being the former leader of a home group, I know how that system works.
And yes, its about Jesus, and yes thats broad, and yes I agree it should be broad. Why? Because its Jesus. We should not focus on one aspect more than another. Why can’t it be all about Jesus? A church that is about anything other than Jesus is the church that is in the wrong. And what evidence do you have contrary to my claim? will you use your own church as the example and then tell me that it apllies to all churches? I know there are churches out there that are traditional and preach and teach the Bible Correctly and I also know there are churches out there thay shun away visitors and make it all about themselves and how people look and act. I also understand that contemporary churches are the same way, some are open and inviting and love Jesus and others don’t. The point is that he is talking to the churches who don’t love Jesus, teach Jesus, and make it about Jesus. So I will continue to say its all about Jesus, because as broad as that sounds, isn’t that what the church is suppose to be about? Not some man’s written thesis but about the Bible what it says and what it teaches?
Nolan: 1) I wrote: “All about Jesus? Really? These are broad strokes you’re painting. The assumption is that no other church is focused on Jesus, so Noble needs to reform the current church to focus on Jesus. This is quite a claim, but the evidence doesn’t support your claim.”
The broad strokes reference is to the assumption that Noble needs to begin a reformation because no other church is focusing on Jesus. This assumption is simply too broad, and again is because Noble likes to focus on other churches.
2) A worship service has one main purpose: worship. The focus should be to praise and glorify God, not to appeal to non-Christians.
3) Home groups. I am sure some are good. But many NS-ers don’t attend one and some of the groups don’t accomplish much. Again, this is what people who love NS say.
Sorry! The last post was directed to Seth, but I addressed it to Nolan.
I had a brain freeze. I AM FREAKIN’ HUNGRY!!!!
@ anonymous
“Let me assure you of something. If your main objective was to show love and mercy to PN and Newspring and you were to privately bring scriptural references against the things he was doing then he would listen to you and explain himself to you.”
No, he would not.
Anonymous,
Did you read that Luther quote? I put it there for a reason.
Jesus’ accusers were trying to take his life. Same for Luther. That’s hardly your “love and mercy,” yet both answered the question.
I’m not nearly as scary, I would have thought.
Toomy F.
At tradtional churches, not everyone who goes there attempts to grow either, not everyone there attends sunday school or home group type things or attempts ot grow either. Thats assumtion on number 3 can be made of all churches. I’m sorry if you think i give the deffense because I love NS but I give it because it is fact. No, not everyone attends Home Groups, but then again, like I said, in a traditional church, not everyone attends every event. Like I said, which you obviously did not see, or reply to because I was correct, NS discples its followers by encouraging self growth and study of the scriptures and by not being spoon fed.
To number 2 yes it is, but define what worship is pleasing to God? again, I ask for a scripture refernce and so far in all my past comments i have yet to receive any to show me what types of song or style of music God prefers. Yeah, sure they did Highway to Hell, but did you hear any of the other worship songs they played? no, because you only look at the negative, not the positive. And nowhere in my comment did i mention it being about the people, I said it SEEMS like it is directed at them.
Also, yeah, Perry mentions other churches, but you make it sound like ALL he does is go after other churches when clearly, any one actually listens to him would say that he doesn’t.
I will say this, I consider myself to be pretty scripture based. So for all the post that you have attacking NS, I wouold like to see more scripture references, I think to critique what someone does/says, especially a pastor, one needs to make sure they are using scripture and making sure that they are not attacking someone because they don’t like the way they do things.
The equivocation over this term is a little pointless.
What is happening in churches across America absolutely is a reformation, it is reforming the Church, or rather moving back to what happened in the first reformation.
Especially in the south (which is were Perry mainly experienced the church and backing for most of his overgeneralized statements) churches and christians have moved away from the teachings of: Grace, Faith, only Jesus and only God. The south (again I’m saying this as a gerneralization) teaches what it means but very rarely puts them into practice. That is the reformation that I think Perry is discussing.
Grace is not given to many people, from experience southern churches tend to expect someone to know the Gospel and be perfect coming into a church. I was taught to be a good boy, and not to sin. Galatians 3:10-11 says this
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is writeen, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The Righteous shall live by faith.”
The body generally has neglected living by faith.
I recently learned that faith is trusting God, and I’ve been in churches for 20 years now.
Perry has had a lot of negative experiences with the Church and that makes his statements a little more reasonable. If the only churches you experienced were full of malice and were more about politics that Jesus and then you went to Newspring (where it is about Jesus) you could call that a reformation.
But seriously, quit arguing over the term.
With all due respect, the term is important. To claim a reformation for Christianity is not a passing comment, or rather shouldn’t be.
Words are important, and making clear what they mean (as well as what they don’t) is important, otherwise meaning is lost.
The problem seems to be that NS-ers want to have it both ways: they want the attention and to be taken seriously as long as the attention is positive and there’s no scrutiny. But, when the attention points out problems they avoid the main issue.
If Ace is promoting another reformation that’s significant, regardless if he’s right or wrong.
@Tommy F.
“The problem seems to be that NS-ers want to have it both ways: they want the attention and to be taken seriously as long as the attention is positive and there’s no scrutiny. But, when the attention points out problems they avoid the main issue.”
What exactly is the main issue? What are we avoiding? It seems to me from all the posts I have seen from the pro-NS crowd on this site–they are taking the issue head-on. Scrutiny is fine, but if it was completely warranted, there would not be any comments besides yours and Twit. As many issues can be raise with NS, there can be raised with the logic of posts against it. By all means, I want you to take the movement seriously, but if that requires taking your logic as the Gospel truth with the scrutiny, I’d rather hit the ignore button on the criticism.
B.Rink: You wrote: “By all means, I want you to take the movement seriously, but if that requires taking your logic as the Gospel truth with the scrutiny, I’d rather hit the ignore button on the criticism.” Sounds like Ace has taught you very well. Let me guess you’re a volunteer who hopes to be on staff one day? It sounds like you’ll fit right in.
NS-ers are very defensive regarding PP. Weekly they write comments that can be summed up in two words: “Go away.” or “Shut up.” Occasionally, they resort to the 5 word defense: “Shut up and go away.”
Recently, the NS defense has gotten more active, but it’s odd that they can’t admit any criticism is valid. They seem to view NS and Ace as perfect.
They don’t like the scrutiny about NS practices or teaching. The most recent example is the Reformation issue. Can you list what this Reformation is about? MLuther listed 95 items. So, take all the space you need.
Seth, you write, ” Yeah, sure they did Highway to Hell, but did you hear any of the other worship songs they played? no, because you only look at the negative, not the positive.”
I only looked at what they chose to show me from that service, but I’m encouraged to see that you agree that it was a negative.
@Tommy F.
Ok, I’ll play along:
1. Loving God
2. Loving One Another
I think my source for that is Jesus. This does not mean other churches do not do that(knew that one was coming), but the reformation that is being proposed by Perry is Biblically-based and those two would be the start. That start has gotten Newspring to where it is now and to wherever it goes in the future.
B.Rink,
That’s so good that it’s actually unhelpful. Both sides in the original Reformation would have endorsed your list wholeheartedly. The question is how you do those things.
You’ve got it! They would both agree and they would do things differently. Both sides would call each other names and claim heresy, but it has not mattered. Both institutions still exist today. They are both doing Church the best way they know how and are thriving. In a sense, that is where we are now with this debate. We can argue until Kingdom come, but both churches like Newspring and churches that are attended by y’all will exist. They will argue on blogs like this for years after we exist physically, but we won’t know who is right until after we exist physically.
I know this sounds frighteningly close to stop talking about Newspring, but that is not what I’m saying. Debate for as long you want to, but I struggle to see the impact of it.
You see no difference that matters between Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church?
You might re-read my postdenominationalism post to see what I think of that notion.
B.Rink: The Reformation was not a civil Q&A (like PP). It was bloody, deadly, and cruel. You seem to want a gentler, kinder reformation.
Also, your most recent post sounds a lot like fatalism. Is that what you are promoting?
I couldn’t even tell you what that is, Tommy F. If its some evil doctrine, I am not promoting intentionally.
And yes, I see many important differences between Protestant/RCC, but almost 500 years of debate has not defeated either side. It seems that if one was so much more right than the other–someone would have won by now. But here we go again. An endless series of questions with debatable answers. I’m checking out–have fun guys.
B.Rink (for when you check back in),
St. Peter assumed that error would endure forever, which is why God’s enduring Word commands us to be wary of false teachers. Just because a heresy has lasted for more than 500 years is not a reason to throw up your hands and say, in effect, “Who cares or who knows?”
B.Rink,
I just re-read your post and these words stood out: “If one was so much more right than the other”
If?
Are you really not sure?
@ Tommy F
I agree terms are important, but you seemed to have read Perry’s twitter out of context.
After the reformation part, he mentions that “the Church has been a sleeping giant for too long!!!”
Like I said in previous comment, the Church is moving into putting those teachings into action. Not changing doctrine. The refomration that is occuring isn’t going to be bloody in America, (1st Amendment, brownie points Mr. Duncan?
but throughout the globe it is. China, India and Africa to name a few.
Now, the term was probably confusing at first. I see that it could. But I just explained what Perry most likely thought of when he said it.
Matt:
You wrote: “I agree terms are important, but you seemed to have read Perry’s twitter out of context.” That’s funny. Twitter removes context, which is why he shouldn’t have used it as a forum to proclaim reformation.
You wrote: “Not changing doctrine.” If so, then he should stop calling it a reformation. Read the 95 theses. MLuther was apparently big on doctrine.
You wrote: “Now, the term was probably confusing at first.” I’m not confused, Noble is (refer to the above two points).
The problem here is that we’re guessing what he means. Doctrine? Circel: Yes, no, maybe. Practice? Circle: Yes, no, maybe. What is this a middle school puppy love note?
He needs to outline his reforms, otherwise he’s foolish to use the term, and it’s unwise to keep guessing what he means. And it’s certainly difficult for NS-ers to support (or not), when it’s unclear what reforms he wants.
Perry writes: “We’re not seeing revival…I believe this is the beginning of a new reformation!!! The church has been a sleeping giant for too long!!!”
You did read it out of context. Or rather, forgot to read the rest of the twitter. He talks about the sleeping giant the Church has been and that day (plus many others) he has experienced growth and life transformation. The context is that he was excited. Here is what happened that day.
http://www.perrynoble.com/2009/05/03/sunday-night-reflections-97/
It is about practice, there really isn’t guessing. The reflections discuss who is saving them-Christ. I’m sure if you watch the message that Clayton preached that Sunday it would be in line with the reformer’s doctrine and over 100 people responded.
Again, the “reformation”,which I have already stated, really doesn’t have to do with doctrine more of application of it.
Matt:
I disagree. A reformation, by definition, is about theology (doctrine) which is (always) about practice. It cannot be only one. And I still contend that twitter is not the place to announce and proclaim reformation. 140 characters cannot define the context.
I suppose for Noble revival is too churchy a word, but that’s what comes to mind if he’s describing conversions.
But, reformation has a much catchier tone to it doesn’t it? More attention-getting. He simply used the wrong word, and I’ve heard no good defense of why it’s necessary in this context, unless he’s going to outline the reform he seeks.
From what you say it boils down to: “Hey church, wake up.” That’s not a reform, it’s just a wake-up call. And it’s not new to Noble (see Romans 13:11-12).
Definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reformation
Read the origin of the word, and what it means. Root of reform, meaning to form again. Halfway down the page, it says this, “change from worse to better.” What Perry seems to say is that the Church is changing from a “sleeping giant” into something better. The term can be applied to either doctrine or practice. It is not tied down to one term.
The platform of Twitter is completely alright. You probably know that a lot of early reformed theology was presented in tracks, or very short brochures. Twitter would be somewhat of a modern day equivalent.
Matt, you know better than to define concepts from a dictionary, especially an online one.
Reformation, when used in the context that PN meant it, can only be defined in the context of the church and can’t be separated from the original 1517 Reformation.
I don’t think anyone is saying that it shouldn’t have been said on Twitter–I haven’t. I think the point is that you can’t complain that he’s being taken out of context. PN was the one who limited his announcement to 140 characters, not us.
For the record, Noble said, “reformation” not “Reformation.”
If you all really think that the word can only be used as a reference to the Protestant Reformation, you are sorely wrong.
I think Matt may have a point here. The way he is defining a reformation as returning to the original ideas of grace and faith may very well, and is seemingly… and hopefully, the way Perry meant it.
I don’t think Perry’s ideas are wrong or heretical in the way he meant them, it’s most likely that he doesn’t understand the context and implications behind his words. From other tweets (like those aimed at suggesting an enhancement in Dr. Duncan’s love life) we see that he often doesn’t fully think through his words…
Careless? Maybe. Well thought through? Probably not. Knowingly proposing a literal Reformation? Probably not.
JT, having read PN’s blogs and tweets, I wouldn’t put much stock in his capitalization. We’re supposing he’s careless in what he says, but careful in how he punctuates and capitalizes it? You’re mighty generous.
I’m not saying it can only be used in reference to the Reformation (1517), but that PN, in this case, was referencing a 1517-type reformation. He contrasted it with revival, saying it was better and bigger. He wasn’t thinking dictionary definition. He was thinking Martin Luther.
Perhaps this is one advantage of not having finished seminary. You all can assume he really is clueless about what the word means.
If it helps you to interpret it that way, nice for you, but I’m not buying it.
Micah, It would be good if he was merely proposing a return to 1517, but how do you account for the word “new.” It’s not as if he publicly embraces the first one, and the folk who he’s taught don’t see any value in it. Warren, the movement’s closest thing to a Martin Luther, has publicly talked about reformation. I just don’t think this is accidental. They really do think they’re a new wave.
We know that Perry reads this blog. If he cares about the fact that his own followers are confused by his meaning, he has multiple platforms to clear up the confusion. Let’s see what he does.
Duncan, as soon as I posted the online dictionary I knew I would get a response from you
I caught that too. Good thing our blog comments aren’t graded!
James Duncan, you said:
“I’m not saying it can only be used in reference to the Reformation (1517), but that PN, in this case, was referencing a 1517-type reformation. He contrasted it with revival, saying it was better and bigger. He wasn’t thinking dictionary definition. He was thinking Martin Luther.”
You can read Noble’s mind? Really?
JT,
Yes, I really am that good.
It’s the most sensible interpretation of what he said. If you have to reference alternative dictionary definitions to explain what he says, how do you make sense of anything he says? Isn’t the theory that his genius is being able to make his messages very simple to understand?