This seems to be a recurring theme in the comments -- that Bellevue may be moving toward a Purpose Driven model. Please comment on anything you perceive being related to the PDC movement in this thread.
1. Do you think Bellevue is moving in this direction? Why or why not? If so, does this concern you?
2. Have you read The Purpose Driven Life? If so, what did you think about it?
3. Has your Bible Fellowship Class or other group done a study of the PDL? If so, what are your thoughts about it?
4. Do you see this movement and its wide appeal across denominational lines as evidence of the "one world church" the Bible tells us will emerge in the latter days?
These are some links from my personal list, but there are many other sources for information on this topic.
Letter to editor of the Americus Times-Recorder (two pages long).
Reply to above.
Are Rick Warren's Teachings at Bellevue Baptist?
Berean's PDL Discernment Tool
Book review -- Transitioning
Church Growth Movement (multiple articles).
Change Dividing Southern Baptist Mega-Church thread pertaining to Bellevue.
Lighthouse Trails Research Project
One Man's Purpose-Driven Journal
Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven?
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
The Purpose-Driven Pastor discussion.
Transitioning an established church.
Signs of the church growth movement.
Please remember to keep your comments civil and respectful and reflective of the Christians we are. We don't have to agree, but we don't have to be disagreeable either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
It should be noted that PDC/PDL is not necessarily synonomous with seeker-sensitive services or the "church growth movement." They certainly can co-exist in the same church, but that is not necessarily always the case. Some of the statements and links concerning this issue appear to imply that these things are the same. A good discussion of these items will treat them separately.
Every indication is that Bellevue Leaders are trying to carry Bellevue Baptist Church towards the Purpose Driven Church...My prayer is that our members have been taught scriptures enough that we will have enough to stand up and fight this movement. Our family will stay as long as we see there is a chance but I do not want to stay until I am bitter toward the church as a whole. I want to be where I can serve the Lord in a loving church...As Bellevue once was a family of friends and friends to the family...
RE: Comments made on another thread about Dr Rogers' endorsement of PDC/PDL:
“I cannot say that I know God is going to fully recover me, but I can say I believe He will. I really do, and I’m not just blowing smoke. ... I have a good confidence in my heart. In the meanwhile, I am not morose or unhappy. I don’t dwell on this. I just do the best I can and enjoy life.”
The above is a statement taken from the "Florida Baptist Witness" interview. It was made by Dr Adrian Rogers not too long before he went home.
I am posting it here because I know in my heart that Dr Rogers' walk with the Lord was the closest you could have on this side of Glory. Yet he felt that the Lord was going to heal him, which He did, He took him home for the ultimate healing.
This goes to show that while on this earth we most certainly look thru the glass darkly.
I have trouble believing that Dr Rogers would have allowed the dumbing down and lowering the standards of the Lord's church to attract the world and drag it's values into our midst.
To mom4 & ilovebbc,
Your comments in the other thread regarding Dr. Rogers endorsing Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church were duly noted. I have no problem leaving the beginning of that discussion there, and you can continue it here should you desire.
I found that endorsement myself several weeks ago, and I have to say it gave me chills. I really had to wonder if Dr. Rogers didn't see the direction this movement was going, if not then, at least in the ensuing years. I was shocked and surprised he had endorsed Rick Warren's teachings. They seem so out of sync with everything I always thought Dr. Rogers stood for.
But remember Zondervan Press which is part of the SBC publishes Rick Warren's books. That bothers me, too.
Other than knowing about the PDL book, until recently I had no idea this was such a huge and organized movement. Several friends highly recommended reading PDL, but I've always shied away from it. There was always that "something" about it that didn't seem quite right. Sort of that old "check in my spirit" thing. Now I've read most of it, and I truly believe that this was the Holy Spirit telling me that this is a place I shouldn't go. And the fact that Bellevue went through the 40 Days thing, and several BF classes are in the midst of it right now, is cause for even more concern to me.
To me this is nothing more than fulfillment of prophecy and the "one world church" the Bible tells us will emerge in the latter days. Why do you think the movement has such wide appeal across denominational lines? If the Catholics and Mormons and so many others are embracing it, how much substance can it really contain? What shocks and distresses me greatly is that Southern Baptists seem to be leading the charge. The issues at Bellevue right now, while in some ways related, pale in comparison to this purpose driven "cult" we're now seeing.
NASS
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa there...
"If the Catholics and Mormons and so many others are embracing it, how much substance can it really contain?"
Non-Christian religions such as Mormonism make it a habit to copy Christianity in one way or another, just as counterfeiters try to make fake money look real.
But do you seriously lump the Catholic denomination in with non-Christian religions?
--Mike
NASS said, "But remember Zondervan Press which is part of the SBC publishes Rick Warren's books. That bothers me, too."
Just as a point of clarification, there is no affiliation betweeen Zondervan Press and the SBC. The SBC publishing house goes under the names of Lifeway, Broadman, Holman, and Broadman & Holman. Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins Publishers, a secular publishing house. Zondervan considers itself to be an evangelical press, and they publish many high quality, Christian books. However, they should not be confused with the SBC publishing house (Lifeway, et al).
NASS,
Can you please expound on how the PDC/PDL movement is the fulfillment of prophecy of a one-world church? Just curious.
evan wrote:
"Just as a point of clarification, there is no affiliation betweeen Zondervan Press and the SBC. The SBC publishing house goes under the names of Lifeway, Broadman, Holman, and Broadman & Holman. Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins Publishers, a secular publishing house. Zondervan considers itself to be an evangelical press, and they publish many high quality, Christian books. However, they should not be confused with the SBC publishing house (Lifeway, et al)."
Thank you so much for correcting my error! I don't know what I was thinking other than that the Baptist Press, which isn't a publisher of books but of daily news in the SBC, has been a big defender of Rick Warren's books and methods. Guess I was still foggy from that fainting spell the other day when Mike Bratton said he agreed with something I had said!
Anyway, I'm glad someone was paying attention, and I stand humbly corrected.
I'll expound on your question later.
NASS
Like I've said,
You can say it's not PDC...but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
And if it walks like a duck...
NASS
Evan, you need to read the link to James Sundquist's article on the Global P.E.A.C.E. plan on www.abrahamic-faith.com/False-Teachers.html - click on Rick Warren and His Global P.E.A.C.E Plan. Very enlightening and why NASS mentioned one world church. RW is trying to usher in "Kingdom Now" without Jesus' help. It is a fascinating book. To "straining gnats" who thinks James Sundquist is a nut - he and others seem to back their arguments up very well and many times with page numbers to his PDL book so you can look it up yourself provided you haven't trashed your copy yet. I'm planning to set fire to mine as soon as I finish researching RW. The Lighthousetrailsresearch.com website is fantastic and has articles from different authors on many movements going on throughout the church. I loved David Jeremiah and used to listen to him every day until I found out his church is now on the PDC list and he is also endorsing New Agers in his books. To MB - I know you won't believe me so feel free to research for yourself. I think he has a New Ager referenced on the cover of his Captured By Grace book or it might be inside the first few pages. I do not have the book but my friend does so it is easy enough to verify. He also has another book that references many New Agers - the name of that book is escaping me at the moment. I will try to look it up and get back to you. In addition, I read about half of a very long article last night on the abrahamic faith website called "Birds of a Feather" and it shows a very long line of New Agers that Rick Warren is associated with and everything is referenced. He even wrote about them in his PDL book! I didn't spend a lot of time checking out scripture and names he threw out in that book because Dr. Rogers endorsed him and I assumed he was fine. I can tell you I will never assume anything of the sort again (nothing against Dr. Rogers - I assume he was misled as well as tons of other pastors around the country).
Also MB, I have been told by a respected seminary professor that Catholics are not a cult but a sect. As I recall, a cult is anything that adds to Jesus. I can't remember what exactly he said about a sect. I believe there are many Christian Catholics because I had good friends in college who were Catholic and who also had a personal relationship with Jesus. Unfortunately many do not and are more worried about Mary and their personal relationship to their priest. I think that is what NASS is referring to however I would never put words in her mouth. I have only been researching PD/RW for about 2 months so please give me a break if I have misstated something.
Thanks in advance,
Diana Hart
"I am a person of plain talk and not moved to symbolic demonstrations, but what better place to kill two birds than to lay this symbol at the foot of the alter. This just hit me, since we will all be walking down the isle to place our symbols of hope in the receptacles, why not at the same time place these symbols of fear on the steps of our sacred alter and be done with it."
Because you will be taking a time of offering and worship, and insinutating into it a time of protest and disruption.
That's never a good idea.
--Mike
This is an interesting read.
Your thoughts?
NASS
Or "insinuating," even.
--Mike
Hey Diana!
Welcome! I've tried three times to post comments to the MS Comments forum to answer the questions you asked me, but I guess the moderator over there isn't seeing my comments because they're not getting posted. Since things seem to have wrapped up there, I hope you'll hang around here now.
You touched on a lot of the points I was going to "expound" upon in answer to Evan's question. I'm still working on that, Evan!
About the Catholic/Mormon thing. You expressed what I meant very well. I've always considered both to be so-called "Christian" religions, but both have added so much to the Bible and so many extra "requirements" for salvation that in my opinion, both miss the mark. So yes, Mike. I put them both on about the same level, although if I had to rank them I would put the Catholics a couple of rungs above the Mormons. I just can't justify praying to Mary and the saints as being anything more than a waste of time.
BTW, in answer to your question if I could find an online copy of the Discovery 101 material similar to the Discovery 301 material, I couldn't. I have some information about the material used in BBC's Discovery class I'll share later.
NASS
I'm glad to see people investigating PDC/PDL..it's always wise anytime you hear words like "pardigm, life-changing" etc, to look closely at such claims about a book, philosophy, or program concerning the church. We have a responsibility as Christians to weigh all these things in light of scriptural truth. There are many bad movements and teachings around us these days...Emergent Church, Open Theism, etc. These are things we as Christians cannot afford to ignore. The way most false teachings find their way into the church is by using vernacular that most Christians are familiar with, which gives it an air of legitimacy...even the Mormons, with their focus on family values, rings true with many people in this day of the disintegrating family...but it's teachings are anything but "Christian". Also, I don't know about you, but when I look at a book..I want to know as much as I can find out about it's author...where they went to school/seminary, who have been their greatest influences, what reviewers have to say about their book, etc. For instance a big influence in both Warren's and Hybel's ministries is Robert Shueller (hope i spelled that right)..the famous "positive Christianity" guru of the Crystal Cathedral in California. Both men attended his seminars on how to grow a church. Follow that line of influence back a little further...Shueller's biggest influence was Norman Vincent Peale..some of you may remember him if you're old enough...who propagated a religion of positive thinking. Unless I'm mistaken (someone can correct me if i'm wrong), Peale was a contemporary of L. Ron Hubbard of "dyanetics" fame..who I think (again correct me if I'm wrong), was the "founder" of the religion which Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and many in Hollywood circles ascribe to. I say all this point up the insidiousness of these heresies...these "fads" never really go away..they just morph over time into something with a new face...but the same underlying philosophy...the only way the child of God can discern these things is to have our senses trained and attuned to the truth of God's word...then when something comes along..no matter how subtle the error may be...it won't pass the smell test. Just something to think on.
NASS,
Thank you for your continued promise to address my question. I would like to make a disclaimer that I am in no way defending Rick Warren. I have never met him, nor have I ever attended a service at Saddleback. I have read PDC. The reason for asking my question was two-fold. First, the statement about Warren revealed a specific eschatological position (dispensationalism). Thus, in order to answer the question, a defense of dispensational eschatology must be made (the reference to a one-world church is almost exclusively dispensational). Second, such a statement also seems to imply that Rick Warren is either associated with, or perhaps is himself, the beast or the woman sitting on the beast of Revelation 17. While some may believe that, I would stress caution in connecting any person (even the worst of them) with the beast of Revelation. Similar connections were made of Hitler and others in history, but they were obviously not true. Therefore, I simply want to make you aware of the vast ramifications of your statement and the large body of material that will need to be addressed to effectively answer my question.
Thank you for your work on my question. I look forward to your response.
Diana,
Thank you for your response. I have perused the materials from Mr. Sundquist. While he makes some stinging critiques of Warren, his arguments are loaded with emotional appeals. I am not saying that Mr. Sundquist is necessarily wrong, I am only saying that his work could use some more objectivity, and his arguments could be stated more logically (rather than emotionally). Mr. Sundquist also makes his points from a dispensational eschatological standpoint. However, he neglects to lay that out as a basis of his argument. If one does not hold to a dispentational view, then his arguments fall apart. Also, he ties dispensationalism directly to those who read Scripture as literally true. I would like to point out that dispensationalism is a relatively new theological system (last 100 years or so); therefore, he would be dismissing even some of the great reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hubmaier, etc)--in effect claiming that they did not believe the Bible was literally true. Now I do believe it is possible to make a defense for dispensationalism; however, we must be aware that such a defense must be made PRIOR to making claims based on that view.
This may seem to be off topic, but in reality, the topic of dispensationalism is directly related to the comments made about PDC/PDL being a one world church.
Food for thought.
Allofgrace,
I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction over the last week or so. However, I feel obligated to point out a logical fallacy in your last comment. You make the mistake of associating Hubbard and Peale on the basis that they are contemporaries. Certainly they were contemporaries (in the broad sense of the term). Peale lived from 1898 to 1993, and Hubbard lived from 1911 to 1986. While Peale's "positive thinking" and Hubbard's "scientology" may have similar ideas, I am not aware of any connection between the two men. In fact, I would guess that their paths would not have crossed. Peale was a Reformed pastor, and Hubbard was a science fiction writer. If you can document a conenction between the two, then I will certainly retract my statement. However, my search has revealed no such connection. The result of your post (though probably completely unintended) was then to place a thought in the reader's mind that Warren and PDC/PDL are associated with Scientology. Let's be very careful here.
This is just a reminder that we should think before we speak/write and only say the things we know are true or can document/logically support as true. Allofgrace, keep up the good work.
Evan,
Thanks for bringing up the fact of the newness of dispensationalism..I think most folks these days don't realize just how recent this eschatological view is. At one time further back...there was a view similar to it...chialism..correct me if I'm wrong Evan...but in it's current form..is very recent.
Evan,
Thanks for correcting my timeline on Peale and Hubbard..I knew you could and would...I wasn't making a connection between the two...just pointing up some different ideas floating around..around the same time frame..which obviously don't exactly line up...I'm getting old..forgive me for my fading memory..lol. My main point is that these different ideas, don't seem to ever go away..they simply as I put it..morph and put on a new face in some instances..I guess I should add more details to my statements to better clarify what I'm saying, but I guess I feel I'm long winded enough already(chuckling). Again thanks, for sharing your knowledge and insights with us. Btw, I enjoy our exchanges as well.
Allofgrace,
You are correct in mentioning chiliasm. It was a very early form of premillennial eschatology. However, it is still very different from classical dispensationalism. Even historical premillennialism (which is very different from dispensationalism) accepts some basic ideas of chiliasm. Also, I need to correct my earlier statement about the age of dispensationalism--it is actually about 150-170 yrs old.
For the sake of this thread, we are going pretty far afield of the subject. Allofgrace, if you want to post something on your blog about it, I would be happy to continue the conversation there.
evan wrote:
"First, the statement about Warren revealed a specific eschatological position (dispensationalism). Thus, in order to answer the question, a defense of dispensational eschatology must be made (the reference to a one-world church is almost exclusively dispensational). Second, such a statement also seems to imply that Rick Warren is either associated with, or perhaps is himself, the beast or the woman sitting on the beast of Revelation 17. While some may believe that, I would stress caution in connecting any person (even the worst of them) with the beast of Revelation."
As for your first point, NASS will have to consult a dictionary to address the statement. You "amateur theologian" types need to remember that most of us... aren't.
And as for your second point, I was implying no such thing. We're told the anti-Christ will be handsome and charismatic. I find Rick Warren to be... neither.
NASS {with tongue firmly implanted in cheek}
churchmouse,
I'm probably going to kick myself over this when my mailbox fills up with hate mail (not implying from you), but try this:
notastepford_sheep@yahoo.com
"About the Catholic/Mormon thing. You expressed what I meant very well. I've always considered both to be so-called "Christian" religions, but both have added so much to the Bible and so many extra "requirements" for salvation that in my opinion, both miss the mark. So yes, Mike. I put them both on about the same level, although if I had to rank them I would put the Catholics a couple of rungs above the Mormons. I just can't justify praying to Mary and the saints as being anything more than a waste of time."
Sorry for the late response.
Catholicism is a Christian denomination, since they have the common core beliefs shared by all Christian denominations.
Mormonism is not a Christian denomination, since they reject the common core beliefs shared by all Christian denominations.
Mormonism teaches that God used to be "some guy" living on "some planet," who achieved godhood by being well-behaved. He and his goddess wife (yes, you read that correctly) came to this neck of the universe and started having babies. One baby was named "Jesus," another was named "Lucifer." And talk about staying pregnant--every living human being was originally born from goddess/mom.
I could continue, but I don't want to gross you out any more than I might have already. Except to leave you with this defining Mormon quote: "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become."
To boil it down, Catholicism is a Christian denomination, and leads people to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
Mormonism is a non-Christian, anti-Christian group that leads people away from a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and leads them to an eternity separated from God in hell.
It might be more prudent to invest time in dealing with movements like the LDS than with the PDL, wouldn't you agree?
--Mike
Mike,
I have to disagree with you about Roman Catholicism. To be true to the "faith once for all delivered to the saints.." there are core doctrines that must be believed...even to be considered within the pale of Biblical orthodoxy. Catholicism is a faith+works religion...the Bible clearly teaches that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Mary is considered as co-redemptress. .."there is no other name given...whereby men may be saved." They believe the priest has authority to absolve sin...only God defines what sin is, and has sole authority to forgive sin. They re-crucify Christ at mass....I could go on and on...but I think it's clear, that although they may share some terminology...they are far afield of that "faith once for all delivered to the saints."
I'm not exactly sure how this got to Catholics and Mormons--ah, the beauty of blogs!
I want to offer a via media here. Mormonism is certainly not a "Christian religion." The commonalities cease once you get past the ideas that Jesus actually lived on earth and that the Bible was written. The added "revelation" of the book of Mormon, etc, destroys all similarities.
Catholicism is a different animal. For the most part Catholics consider the Bible to be God's Word. Now whether or not they believe it is inerrant, infallible, etc, well, that depends on who you talk to. For the most part I would say probably not. Here is where things get more difficult. There are some sincere Catholics who are true believers--I know a few. They don't leave the Catholic Church because of the tradition or any of a number of reasons. At the same time, the officially sanctioned teachings of the church depart from Scripture (hence the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century).
What it comes down to is this. The Truth can be found in the Catholic church (if you look hard enough). The Truth cannot be found in the teachings of Mormonism--it is a false religion. Ultimately, we need to witness to both groups. Every once in a while, you may be pleasantly surpised to find a true believer among the Catholics.
allofgrace said...
Mike,
I have to disagree with you about Roman Catholicism. To be true to the "faith once for all delivered to the saints.." there are core doctrines that must be believed...even to be considered within the pale of Biblical orthodoxy.
I am not, by any stretch, an apologist for the Catholic denomination; their belief system is unnecessarily layered with that which is extra-Biblical. However, their own denominational declaration is that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and that good works stem from that salvation.
Yes, there are a number of problems with the denomination as a whole, many of which you've listed. We could sit down together, examine the particulars of any Christian denomination, and no doubt find specious doctrines, traditions, and theology.
Christendom is a big tent. Catholicism is inside the tent. Mormonism is not.
Sola scriptura.
Sola gracia.
Sola fide.
--Mike
"It might be more prudent to invest time in dealing with movements like the LDS than with the PDL, wouldn't you agree?"
After reading more about the Mormon church, I do agree with you that it's "non-Christian," and I hereby amend my original comments to reflect that opinion. I had read some about their beliefs before, but apparently what I read was written by a Mormon because it did not include references to all those really weird (mild word for it) things I've read about since.
As for your question above though, while investing time in debunking the Mormon "religion" and witnessing to those who are a part of it are certainly worthy of our efforts and attention, on the other hand, Brigham Young, et al. aren't invading our own churches. PDL... is.
NASS
Mike,
You left out: solus Christus and soli deo gloria...are you Catholic?...jk bro..that was...snarky?..lol. Blessings.
New BBC Open Forum said...
"It might be more prudent to invest time in dealing with movements like the LDS than with the PDL, wouldn't you agree?"
After reading more about the Mormon church, I do agree with you that it's "non-Christian," and I hereby amend my original comments to reflect that opinion. I had read some about their beliefs before, but apparently what I read was written by a Mormon because it did not include references to all those really weird (mild word for it) things I've read about since.
I am overwhelmingly pleased and blessed to read that.
As for your question above though, while investing time in debunking the Mormon "religion" and witnessing to those who are a part of it are certainly worthy of our efforts and attention, on the other hand, Brigham Young, et al. aren't invading our own churches. PDL... is.
NASS
Why do you consider it to be an invasion?
--Mike
Actually, Nass, you are completely responsible for everything Mr. Sundquist says by playing host to his remarks, and facilitating their distribution.
Your disclaimer is as meaningless as the famous "saving Bellevue" disclaimer, "We regret the consequences of their actions."
If you want your disclaimer to mean something, I would encourage you to highlight those things in Mr. Sundquist's epistle with which you disagree. A good starting place would be his declaration that temperament tests are "inspired by demons".
And Mr. Sundquist, since I'm confident you're checking back in here on occasion, I did want to respond to something you wrote. I quote you thusly, and like so: " I also emailed a large number of the Southern Baptist Churches in Tennessee inquiring and sharing with them about Rick Warren's teachings. Not one single pastor replied!!!"
If your e-mails to those churches were anything like what's been passed along here, there's an easy answer to why "not one single pastor" responded: There wasn't anything in your e-mails worth responding to.
--Mike
mike bratton wrote:
"Actually, Nass, you are completely responsible for everything Mr. Sundquist says by playing host to his remarks, and facilitating their distribution."
Well, I'm certainly not responsible for the things you say. Why should I be responsible for anything Mr. Sundquist says? I'm ultimately responsible for letting comments be posted here because I know the password and you don't, but as far as being responsible for the content of said comments -- nope. The responsibility for the content of any comment lies strictly with its author.
And now I'll just be a scrollin' on by....
I'm NBBCOF and I approved this message.
P.S. Ditto what "choice" said.
After the new posting was made with links in place, I tried to follow the logic of Mr. Sundquist and his arguments don't make sense to me. I am not saying that they are incorrect, just that I can not seem to follow it.
Quite frankly, the church is to be "Christ Centered" and nothing else.
Some of the items that Mr. Sundquist has problems with such as "personality" testing, I can not find information that leads me to believe that any thing is wrong with. Perhaps someone could elaborate and help me to understand this argument, because I am at a loss.
The only thing that I really know on this subject is that Psychology was my favorite subject in both high school and college. It was fascinating to me personally to gain insight into how and why other people thought and acted.
I have also not been able to see how many of the links to other sights that are supposed proof of Purpose Driven Church activity are supported. When I went to these other sights, I could not find anything concerning PDC or Rick Warren. Have I missed something?
Thanks
And for a more lighthearted look at the PD movement see The Sacred Sandwich. Be sure to check out the "Gallery of Dubious Photojournalism," the link to which is about halfway down that page. If you don't laugh at something you find there, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you!
NASS
LibertyInChrist,
Thank you, I appreciate the help. To briefly summarize what I saw is this.
Psychologist break down humans into body, soul and personality..opposed to the Bible which defines us as body, soul and spirit. The semantics may seem small but the conclusions drawn are vastly different.
While, I do not believe that these test belong within the church, I still can not reason that they are satanic in nature. It is important from a Christian perspective to remember that what is defined as our personality in these test is defined as our spirit by God.
I would still like to gain more understanding of this, if these test are indeed satanic in nature.
Psychology disregards the spiritual nature of man...most of the psychological theorists are humanists/evolutionists...and psychology is just that...theory...not an exact science, which means it's always in flux. I'll agree, whether Freud, Maslow, Jung, Rogers, et al...they all make interesting observations about the human condition..however none have the solution..only Freud even suggests that man is inherently evil...the rest think man is inherently good...he just needs to "actualize", overcome his environmental conditioning...etc etc. That's the stuff these kinds of tests are based on..humanism. Personality?...the Bible tells us.."The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked..who can know it?" No test can pin down someone's personality..besides we can know from scripture that our personalities are marred by sin like every other part of our being is..always in need of sanctification..as for using personality/temperament profiling to pigeonhole people into a particular ministry...hogwash...look at all the OT prophets..each one had his own temperament and personality..but all prophets. Spiritual gifts likewise can't be determined by a test. The Bible says to "practice all the gifts"..and to seek the best gifts. It's in that, that a Christian discovers his spiritual gifting. And calling to a particular ministry...is between God and the Christian. Psychology has no place in that. Interesting field...but fatally flawed...it's based on the wisdom of this world.
Thanks, I appreciate your elaboration.
One of things that I am in full agreement is that these test should not be used to pigeon hole people, whether in church or secular environments. Your example of the prophets was wonderful. It helped me understand what you were talking about.
I have seen this used in both chrurh and secular environments I believe it is wrong. There just isn't a secret code that you can unlock and determine what "job" a person is best suited for. You can look at the "sucess" of those in the secular world. For example compare Donald Trump and Fred Smith, completely different yet both "sucessful".
The point that I stop short at, is in saying that since these were not developed by Christians they are satanic in nature. I believe that they do have there place and do not see them as harmful, provided that you don't try to base your life or anyone else upon them. They provide broad generalaities, but they do help you to understand yourself and others.
It is the same reason that I would continue using a light bulb, whether Thomas Edison were a Christian or not.
Another PD story.
nbbcof,
Thanks for that article. Some very interesting observations there. I think the author really nailed it down from an insider's perspective. Everyone should read it.
RickWarren and Global Aids Day
Post a Comment