We’ve been having some conversation around here regarding the connection between methods and results.
Now our specific subject has been Rick Warren. Most of you know him as the author of the best-selling Purpose Driven Life and pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California.
Here’s the conundrum: as we consider using some of Warren’s material at Good Shepherd, we see again his incomplete approach to Scripture. He often pulls single verses far away from their context in a larger book. He privatizes sections of Scripture that are meant to be read & applied in community. Many times, he is more concerned with what Scripture “means” now than with what it “meant” then.
And yet . . . his theology is orthodox. Mainstream evangelical. He is no fundamentalist, nor does he veer towards any cult-like excesses. His conclusions are almost universally sound. As far as his record in ministry, that of building a church the prevails — well, he could hardly be more effective.
So: do incomplete methods lead to complete results?
The question is much larger than Rick Warren. There’s been a great deal of consternation in the Methodist blogosphere (yes, it exists) over Beth Moore’s theology and visibility in our Wesleyan circles. I’ve even been to gatherings where leaders proclaim, “Well, the Baptists have Beth Moore, but we have _____________”, lifting up a name of a Methodist pastor & teacher many hope and pray will garner a similar influence and following.
Or even this: most of you know that I have profound disagreements with the end times theology that undergirds the Left Behind series of novels and movies. Yet many people have come to faith because of those same books and films. What to make of it?
Can methods you disagree with bring about results you celebrate?
What say you?
There are 5 comments
Talbot, no one is perfect. Therefore, everyone’s methods are flawed in some way. But God is perfect and without flaw. He is abundantly capable of using wrong methods to produce right results.
That being said, if you do decide to use Rick Warren’s materials, please point out the areas where Methodism disagrees with him.
Great thought, Selah.
And it’s not so much a Methodist disagreement (unlike what some people have with Beth Moore), it’s more of a “contextual” bible approach.
People like JMS and Chris Thayer and the more comprehensive way they look at Scripture.
Thanks!
Of course. You did say that Warren’s theology is orthodox. I would still want to be made aware of where he used wrong methods to reach right conclusions (if you decide to use his material).
I really appreciate you and GSUMC’s other pastors and teachers. I have learned more about the Bible and theology in my 4.5 years at GSUMC than I did in the previous (almost) 30 years in church and Christian school. In particular JMS’s explanation of Rev. 3:14-22 was, indeed, a revelation:)
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13
I would agree with Talbot on the issue being reading out of context instead of pointing to church tradition.
Talbot, JM, Chris Thayer, Marc Blanco, Bill Caulifield, Carmen Imes, are just a few examples of Good Shepherd bible teachers who stress reading in context.
I believe reading out of context or reading the bible directly can cause contradictions and possibly hurt or cause doubts to a believer’s faith.
For example – a Christian who reads Philippians 4:13 out of context might apply this verse in making a decision to start a new business. If he/she believes the business will succeed because Christ will provide the strength for the believer to have success. Where does that leave the believer if the business fails?
The vast majority of my pagan friends and/or friends from other religions also read the bible out of context. A Christian who makes the same exegetical error would be hindered in providing an accurate defense of the Christian faith when communicating with people from other religions out of love.
These mistakes are best avoided by learning and studying the bible in groups and/or community.
We joke around here at Candler, “Some of my best friends are Calvinist.” In the case of Beth Moore, the reason people are so up in arms is because Calvinist theology is being presented in a Methodist context without explanation.
I went with a (North Point college) student the other night to a church that was having intensive Bible study, and after the first chunk of teaching, I leaned over to her and said, “Just so you know, this isn’t necessarily a North Point stance.” She told me she didn’t really care, because she was learning so much about the Bible.
It’s a fine line, though. If you’re learning a lot of Bible verses, that’s great. But since 75% of the church population isn’t versed in the nuances of theological stances, it can be dangerous to go beyond simple memory verses once someone starts presenting an idea as true without explaining it as “true according to Calvin” or “true according to Wesley/Arminius.” It should be obvious when you’re in a Methodist Church or a Presbyterian Church, but when these teachings are introduced from the other side, it should come with a disclaimer. That’s where the church has a responsibility to step in and help people sort through various stances. Something about Paul and milk verses solids comes to mind…