Religious Americans: My faith isn't the only way

One News Now ^ | 6/23/2008 12:15:00 PM

[Gil4]

It’s not all that hard unless you:

a. are not a Calvinist

or

b. are a Calvinist, but trying not to be too obnoxious about it.

(I keep repeating “It’s not a Kingdom issue.” “It’s not a hill worth dying on.” But somehow “God chose UNCONDITIONALLY” keeps coming out of my mouth.)

[dan1123]

No. But I do believe that Faith should be grounded in reason, not feelings, and the whole of the book is based upon warm fuzzies.

There are plenty of books on the rational basis for Christianity. PDL was meant to address the emotional longings of people rather than address the intellect. I think it is an important endeavor because people today have been trained to respond primarily to emotion, and must therefore be reached at that level first and be given an emotional call for faith to drive a rational one. Just because a pastor has written a book addressing one facet of faith to a broad audience does not mean he excludes all other more weighty theological tomes.

But I do believe it is evidence that Saddleback Church is a distinct branch under the Protestant umbrella.

The "What we believe" points listed on the website does not exclude doctrine of many branches of Protestant belief. It is a very broad set of statements with which very many churches would agree.

If someone at Warren's church sought serious intellectual treatment of a given topic, he would have to go towards Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy...something with a deep theological reserve.

I am sure Saddleback draws from sources older than itself and it seems like they would lean Calvinist from their site. Just because a church is nondenominational does not mean they have a shallow faith. Reading their outreach materials also does not give one a good basis for judging their theology.

[SnakeDoctor]

The Baptist Churches I was raised in were fairly formal -- suits, hymnals, etc. But, even then, Baptist Churches have been the churches with the least pomp & circumstance. They're simple services -- worship, communion, ministry and teaching, personalized prayer, Sunday School, Bible Study, etc. Personally, that's why I like them -- they're not pretentious.

We split our time between Second Baptist Church (a Houston mega-church) and a small Vineyard (non-denominational) Christian Fellowship. Both use somewhat contemporary music -- ranging from classic hymns to Christian rock, and neither is particularly formal dress -- "come as you are to worship the Lord" type churches.

But, we've been quite careful to avoid "social club" type secular "prosperity" churches. For instance, Joel Osteen's church (Lakewood Church, where the slogan is literally "Discover the Champion in You" ...) -- where there isn't even a cross on the stage, and there is a big globe behind the preacher (yikes). Osteen never went to divinity school, inherited the church from his father. And there is a big "O" (for Osteen) around the church emblem ... which has the traditional Methodist flame, but no cross whatsoever.

The teachings at both of our churches are heavily Biblical, and Sunday School classes are quite intensive. Dr. Ed Young, the Pastor at 2nd Baptist, isn't afraid to make the generally white upper-middle-class congregation uncomfortable (as he did with a recent sermon on tithing ... a touchy subject).

He isn't afraid to take a political stand, either (as with the upcoming July 4th celebration of God and Country, and accompanying salute to the military).

H

[B Knotts]

Polls on religious issues are notoriously misleading. One of the constant problems is that people are allowed to self-identify, which results in largely useless data.

One big difference between Protestants and Catholics when it comes to polling is that there are no “ethnic” Baptists, or Presbyterians, or whatever. There are many people who identify themselves as Catholic, out of a sense of ethnic or cultural affinity, but who have not attended a Mass since childhood, and know little about what the Church teaches. Including these people in the “Catholic” category results in skewed poll results.

Anyhow, I think one thing this poll shows is that indifferentism is popular. Doesn’t make it right, though. Truth is not determined by polling.

[Larry Lucido]

Likewise, the Texan will insist that both the Virginian and the Californian are dead wrong, and that the one true path to God is due north

No, the Texan will just say he IS God.

(Ducking)

[dan1123]

Many Protestants believe that the only information about religion is in the Bible as interpreted by one’s own understanding...(True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)

How ironic.

[SnakeDoctor]

Found a picture of the Lakewood Church stage ... big brass globe, and no cross to be found.

H

[SnakeDoctor]

>> No, the Texan will just say he IS God.

Not at all. But that God is Texan is undeniable.

H

[dan1123]

there are no “ethnic” Baptists, or Presbyterians, or whatever.

Never been to the south?

[B Knotts]

Heh...well, maybe not far enough south. But, I think the sense you’re speaking of is a bit different than the Italian/Polish/Irish-Catholics of the north.

[dan1123]

Lakewood fits pretty well with the definition of a cult. It's a fast-growing religious movement with a strong leader with a focus on the group/self. When Catholics accuse Protestants of being Bible idolators, Osteen's act of holding up the Bible and practically praying to it was the first thing that came to mind.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

With that in mind, I'd have to answer your question, "Yes." GOD is glorified not by the perfection of man, but in man's seeking of perfection...and in that quest, many errors are made.

Certainly many errors are made in "that quest." But I don't believe God is glorified by those errors. He is, however, glorified by the condemnation that He pronounces on those errors, and the mercy He shows in spite of those errors, as Paul tells us...

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" -- Romans 9:22-23

However, as Paul also tells us, even heresies serve the purpose of God...

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19

To somehow believe God is glorified by the errors of our stumbling efforts is to confuse God with our P.E. teacher.

God is glorified when the truth is spoken about Him which is Christ, and only Christ.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." -- John 15:1-7

[Joe 6-pack]

Are you speaking about errors or intentional misdeeds? I think there is a fundamental distinction. Intentional sin and turning one's back to GOD is quite different than misunderstanding HIS precepts.

Deliberately lying to somebody does not bring HIM glory. Inadvertently providing somebody with incorrect information affords one the opportunity to correct the mistake, admit the error and humble one's self before his fellow man...all of which bring glory to GOD, and in all of which, the initial human error or imperfection was a necessary condition.

[thefrankbaum]

There are plenty of books on the rational basis for Christianity. PDL was meant to address the emotional longings of people rather than address the intellect. I think it is an important endeavor because people today have been trained to respond primarily to emotion, and must therefore be reached at that level first and be given an emotional call for faith to drive a rational one. Just because a pastor has written a book addressing one facet of faith to a broad audience does not mean he excludes all other more weighty theological tomes.

I'm not saying he excludes serious intellectual work in his book. However, ALL of his books that I've come across (maybe there are some I don't know of) are based in emotion.

The "What we believe" points listed on the website does not exclude doctrine of many branches of Protestant belief. It is a very broad set of statements with which very many churches would agree.

That is fine - but you could say the same thing about the Catholic Church's statements of belief. Many points of Catholic doctrine are the same as many points of Protestant doctrine. However, Catholicism and Protestantism are certainly distinct.

I am sure Saddleback draws from sources older than itself and it seems like they would lean Calvinist from their site. Just because a church is nondenominational does not mean they have a shallow faith. Reading their outreach materials also does not give one a good basis for judging their theology.

Two things here. First, I never said they have a shallow faith. I said they have a shallow theology. Second, as far as I see it, "nondenominational" Christians are the same as people who say they are "registered Independents." There is no such thing. If you are a Christian who belongs to a Church with a set of beliefs, you are a member of a denomination. The fact that they do not identify with any of the major branches of Protestantism is indicative of shallow theology. I don't doubt they draw some of their beliefs from other Protestant schools of thought, but it seems piecemeal and justified through "feelings."

I'm not saying that Rick Warren is a bad man, or teaches false doctrine (although, as a Catholic, I do think so), or that they are damned, or anything. I just said it seems like a "Jesus loves you" Gospel to the exclusion of everything else, and they gloss over the challenges of Christianity. Further, I think their message does not have strong intellectual underpinnings. None of this is per se bad, and I've seen many Protestant posters on this forum argue the same thing.

[dan1123]

That is fine - but you could say the same thing about the Catholic Church's statements of belief. Many points of Catholic doctrine are the same as many points of Protestant doctrine. However, Catholicism and Protestantism are certainly distinct.

Maybe you don't understand the rationale behind the "What we believe" statement. There are many Protestant "churches" that have pretty much done away with Christianity entirely: the Bible is considered man-made with plenty of errors, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if He did, he was a man only--not God. The statements are written so that potential members know that they are not walking into a post-modern humanistic "church" that uses a name as window dressing. I believe some so-called "Catholic" churches have slipped into humanism as well.

Two things here. First, I never said they have a shallow faith. I said they have a shallow theology. Second, as far as I see it, "nondenominational" Christians are the same as people who say they are "registered Independents." There is no such thing. If you are a Christian who belongs to a Church with a set of beliefs, you are a member of a denomination. The fact that they do not identify with any of the major branches of Protestantism is indicative of shallow theology.

The point of being non-denominational is similar to the point of citizens to have the right to bear arms. A centralized authority can become corrupt much easier than thousands can, and thousands can keep the authorities in check. Look at the corruption in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian churches in the last few decades. Look at the corruption in the Catholic church over the centuries. And look at which ones gain membership and which ones lose.

When Christians have the option to go to a Biblically grounded church or a feel-good humanistic corrupt church, then they tend to choose the Biblical one--that's a fact that I have seen over and over. If a non-denominational church's leadership becomes corrupt, then it dies and its members go to other churches. A denomination will siphon money from the less corrupt churches to uphold the corrupt church.

I'm not saying that Rick Warren is a bad man, or teaches false doctrine (although, as a Catholic, I do think so), or that they are damned, or anything. I just said it seems like a "Jesus loves you" Gospel to the exclusion of everything else, and they gloss over the challenges of Christianity.

I don't think you have a correct view in this case, which is probably distorted by the outreach documents you have read. Take a look at the other side (barf alert) criticizing Warren for his conservative beliefs. A "Jesus loves you" church wouldn't take the cultural stands listed in the article.

[thefrankbaum]

Maybe you don't understand the rationale behind the "What we believe" statement. There are many Protestant "churches" that have pretty much done away with Christianity entirely: the Bible is considered man-made with plenty of errors, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if He did, he was a man only--not God. The statements are written so that potential members know that they are not walking into a post-modern humanistic "church" that uses a name as window dressing. I believe some so-called "Catholic" churches have slipped into humanism as well.

Okay...but it is still an outline of beliefs. Just because their outline of beliefs is more correct than a lot of the secular "churches" doesn't really negate my previous point. You're absolutely right that some Catholic Priests have fallen into that pit - but I would wager most people already know quite a bit (either truth or lies) about Catholicism long before they step through the threshhold.

The point of being non-denominational is similar to the point of citizens to have the right to bear arms. A centralized authority can become corrupt much easier than thousands can, and thousands can keep the authorities in check. Look at the corruption in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian churches in the last few decades. Look at the corruption in the Catholic church over the centuries. And look at which ones gain membership and which ones lose.

I can understand the point you're trying to get at, but Rick Warren is the Pastor-in-Chief of his church (I dunno his exact position, but you know what I'm getting at.). He teaches his beliefs, and if members disagree, they get to leave. I agree with you on all those points, but the very nature of having specific beliefs makes you a denomination, regardless of what you identify yourself as.

When Christians have the option to go to a Biblically grounded church or a feel-good humanistic corrupt church, then they tend to choose the Biblical one--that's a fact that I have seen over and over. If a non-denominational church's leadership becomes corrupt, then it dies and its members go to other churches. A denomination will siphon money from the less corrupt churches to uphold the corrupt church.

Agreed. Makes me glad my Church has been around for 2000 years despite all the stuff that should've brought it down ;-)

I don't think you have a correct view in this case, which is probably distorted by the outreach documents you have read. Take a look at the other side (barf alert) criticizing Warren for his conservative beliefs. A "Jesus loves you" church wouldn't take the cultural stands listed in the article.

I didn't know Warren supported Harriet Myers - that was a bonehead move for anyone, IMHO. And he may very well take those cultural stands, but every single time I've seen him on TV, seen videos of his sermons, or read something by him, I've never seen him touch on any of those topics. And even if he does touch on them, it doesn't mean he has a well-developed theology. I fully recognize people can get the right beliefs without intellectual grounding - I said that in an earlier post.

[HarleyD]

Others might be saying, 'We believe a truth but respect other people, and they are not necessarily going to hell.'" Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, said that more research is planned to answer those kinds of questions

We believe a truth but respect other people not going to hell because they don't believe in that truth??? People who call themselves "Christians" but believe in multiple ways to heaven are no Christians at all.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.

BTW-One has to wonder what kind of research they plan on doing to truly answer whether Jesus is the only way to heaven?

[Quix]

i AGREE.

WELL PUT.

THX.