++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAUTION: The main reason for posting the following article is that we need to look at the Church Growth Movement from a different perspective. Please study carefully this article derived from “The Christian News” via a Fundamental Baptist Information Service, and see how much this market-driven scheme for church growth has impacted your particular congregation. We now know that a few congregations of the church of Christ, e.g., Richland Hills [Church of Christ] and Oak Hills [Community] Church in Texas have already been subverted and digressed into this culture-driven approach. Has the Woodmont Hills “Family of God” [Church], whose leader is Rubel Shelly, become a trans-Baptist fellowship? Is the Madison Church of Christ there yet?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SHOULD WE GO WITH THE CHURCH GROWTH FLOW?
May 29, 1998 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following article by Stephen Spence is from The Christian News, March 23, 1998 --

Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.

The cartoon showed a picture of two boys standing on a riverbank debating whether or not they would join the throng of people floating downstream in inner tubes. One boy wanted to join the crowd. The other boy was reluctant. He asked his friend, "Where will this river take us?" His friend replied, "What does it matter? Everyone is going that way."

The Church Growth Movement is rushing across our nation like a mighty river. So extraordinary is this movement that it has caught the attention of national media. The Arizona Republic ran the article, "Religion Hits the Big Time," reporting on the phenomenon in the Phoenix area. Almost a dozen huge churches in metropolitan Phoenix are at the forefront of a modern-day Reformation that is shaping the face of Protestantism for the 21st century. At a time when many pastors of many congregations are struggling just to keep membership steady, mega-churches--Protestant churches with week-end attendance of at least 2,00O--are flourishing.

Such reports might make you wonder if there isn't something to this movement. You may be asking, "Should I go with the Church Growth flow?"

Let's answer that question by investigating where this current is headed. The Church Growth Movement divides into two main streams. The mega-church is one of those streams. Nationwide about 400 exist, twenty years ago there were fewer than ten. Mega-churches offer a smorgasbord of personal services --everything from nutrition and weight-loss programs for women to sports and dance class for young people, to parenting classes for single fathers. These programs become a magnet for individuals with similar interest, creating what mega-church pastors call "cells," or small communities of 10 to 12 families, within the congregation. The cells, in turn, become the glue holding the congregation together, by giving everyone a sense of belonging. The second stream of Church Growth is identified by the terms "user friendly," "seeker sensitive," "boomer targeted," or "market driven." It is this course of the river that will be explored in this article.

MEET YOUR GUIDES

Let's meet two of the most popular guides on this downstream trip. The model for market-driven, seeker-sensitive churches is Willow Creek Community Church, pastored by Bill Hybels. In 1975, while still a college student, he became burdened to plant a church in suburban Chicago. Put off by what he perceived as staleness in traditional churches, Hybels envisioned a church that could speak to the contemporary concerns of suburban professionals like himself. In a year's time, his group grew from 150 to 1,000. Today, Willow Creek ministers to more than 15,000 people during a weekend of services. Willow Creek's success has not gone unnoticed. Three times a year, the church sponsors a conference at which 500 church leaders gather to see how it is done. In 1992, Hybels and his church elders formed the Willow Creek Association-which currently has a membership of over 700 churches-to provide support to other seeker-sensitive congregations. Arguably the most authoritative voice among the guides is that of George Barna, the data maker and marketing research guru who has the ear of those who flow with the Church Growth Movement. His books are endorsed by new evangelical leaders such as Bill Bright who said: "We must listen to what George Barna is saying. He knows the pulse and the other vital signs in the Body of Christ. This, combined with his heart for the Great Commission, has produced useful ideas that enhance the effectiveness of evangelism."

THE CURRENT'S CHARACTERISTICS

As you travel this river you will discover certain key elements which clearly mark the current of the Growth Movement. The use of a "seeker service" is standard practice. Barna comments, "As many as one-fifth of all churches claim they now have some kind of seeker service." The definition of a seeker service varies widely, ranging from the radical approach taken by Willow Creek... to churches that mix a few praise and worship songs with traditional hymns in the hope of seeming more relevant to non-Christian visitors. The goal is to achieve a "celebrative worship." This move toward a festival atmosphere is seen in the use of small bands playing contemporary music, paced in a faster tempo than hymns. It is seen in the change from a contemplative quietness in a softly lit sanctuary to a lively talking together in a brightly lit auditorium before the service. It is seen in the participation of clapping and hugging, as contrasted to the sedate and attentive rigidness of older worship styles.

Another distinction is that most of the newer churches in this movement are "seeker centered" or "seeker driven." The services target the unsaved and replace the traditional Sunday morning worship service. The majority of these "seeker sensitive" churches were traditional churches who wanted to draw in unchurched people. They may have modified their Sunday services to make the unchurched feel more comfortable or they may have developed a completely separate service geared just for the unchurched.

A DEFENSE OF THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE SERVICE

Ed Dobson, senior pastor of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has written "Starting a Seeker-Sensitive Service." He records his experience in developing a seeker service in a traditional style church and explains why he started this outreach. His answers are an accurate summary of the defense of this movement. One of his main arguments is relevancy. Dobson contends that the church has become "trapped in an evangelical subculture" where our language, our music, and our worship cannot be understood by the world of the unchurched.

George Barna supports that contention from a survey which listed the leading reasons why the Gospel does not communicate with the non-Christian. He concluded, Americans are seeking first and foremost a deity who will handle their consumer-driven wants, needs, dreams, hurts and disappointments. Their concern is in the here and now, not in the hereafter. They do not see the relevance of the gospel. Dobson's answer to the relevancy dilemma is to reach them with rock music. "We wanted a style of music that communicated to people aged twenty to forty-five. That style of music, without question is rock.. . We felt that a style of music that would get them moving in a physical way would help break down their defenses." Dobson argues that this is what Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, when he said, "I am all things to all men." Dobson explains, To win as many as possible demands flexibility, adjustment, and change. Paul adapted his strategy according to the people group he was reaching... this kind of zeal for evangelism can get us in trouble because what we do in different places to reach different people will often seem contradictory.

Another unusual effort in exegesis was done on In 1 Chronicles 12:32. The verse describes the children of Issachar as "men that had understanding of the times." An entire book on church growth is based on this phrase. The Issachar factor -- the ability to understand the times and know what to do. Their ability -- or lack of it--will determine your church's future. With it, the future holds the promise of vibrant growth and effective service. Without it, the future leads to stagnation and decline. Let's face it, most church models of ministry were developed in an entirely different age. Our nation has changed, people have changed, and we must develop new models of ministry relevant for today's society if we are to fulfill Christ's commission to make disciples.

OVER THE FALLS?

Our investigation of this new current has introduced us to the people and philosophy of the movement. Now we need to return to the question, "Where will this river take us?" To answer that, let me make some observations.

1. THE CHURCH GROWTH MOVEMENT EMBRACES UNBIBLICAL METHODOLOGIES. Its proponents would claim that methods are neutral; all that counts is the result. But would Nadab and Abihu agree that method doesn't matter? Ask Uzzah and King David, as the ark of God was transported to Jerusalem, if methodology makes a difference. Interview Moses after he struck the rock instead of speaking to it. Would he agree that how you do God's work isn't an issue as long as it works? The use of rock music in seeker-sensitive services destroys the concept of God's holiness. The seeker-driven service that replaces the traditional worship service for God's people destroys the principle of Sunday as the Lord's day, a day set aside for God's people to assemble for worship. It replaces God's method for reaching sinners, the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:21), with dramatic productions.

2. THE CHURCH GROWTH MOVEMENT DESIRES TO MINIMIZE THE OFFENSE OF THE GOSPEL IN TAILORING THEIR MESSAGE TO CATER TO THE WANTS AND INTERESTS OF THE UNREGENERATE. They fail to recognize the "offensive" nature of the Gospel to the unsaved (1 Cor. 1:18, 23,24). Paul's advice to Timothy as he faced a generation who wanted their ears tickled was "preach the Word." Paul told the Roman believers, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation." The Gospel, not ministering to felt needs, is the right approach to sinners.

3. THE CHURCH GROWTH EMPHASIS ON "EXCELLENCE IN PROGRAMMING" AND PLANNED AND REHEARSED CELEBRATIVE WORSHIP, MINIMIZES THE POWER OF GOD AND THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO CHANGE MEN. Jesus Christ said, "I will build my church." Zechariah revealed to Zerubbabel that God's work is accomplished, "Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."

4. THE CHURCH GROWTH PHILOSOPHY IS BASED ON FAULTY EXEGESIS. Paul's statement that he was "all things to all men that I might by all means save some" refers to his willingness to set aside his rights if exercising those rights became a stumbling block to preaching the Gospel. There is a world of difference between Paul's attitude of "I am willing to give up my rights so that I can reach as many as possible with the Gospel" and the Growth crowd saying, "We'll use whatever method it takes to entice the unsaved." Dr. Ken Hemphill in his book "The Antioch Effect" hits on a key that is easily overlooked by Church Growth proponents and traditionalists alike. The issue of evangelistic church growth does not hinge on resolving the debate over whether the lost person is more likely to enter the "front door" through seeker worship, or the "side door" through need-centered cell groups. That reduces the issue to a matter of methods and models, and that is not the most critical problem the church of the twenty-first century must face. The issue is not a failure of programming, but rather a failure of passion. We have grown indifferent about the condition of the lost. We no longer have the concern that once drove the church to its knees and then into the streets. While it is not necessary to cling to the programs of the past, it is essential to restore the passion of the past that produced great evangelistic fervor.

To anyone who is contemplating wading into the new current of the Church Growth Movement, beware of the dangerous undertow. You may find yourself swept far downstream before you know it. Don't go with the flow!"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAUTION: The main reason for posting the following article is that we need to look at the Church Growth Movement from a different perspective. While this article is not derived from a “brotherhood” publication, please study it carefully and from the standpoint of how much this market-driven scheme for church growth has impacted your particular congregation. [Ignore the usage of terms such as “pastor” (Baptist minister) and the “Rapture” (Baptist doctrine), etc. “Christian Churches” is not used in reference to a religious group known as “Disciples of Christ”; rather, it is used in reference to “fundamentalist” churches.] The article proves that it is not only the churches of Christ that are impacted by this Movement. Is your local congregation there yet?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1506index.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE OPENING THE DOOR TO ANTICHRIST WITH OUTCOME BASED RELIGION !

"But relative to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to meet Him, we beg you brethren let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first (unless the predicted great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come) and the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition)." [2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]

"when the Son of Man comes, will He find [persistence in] faith on the earth?" [Luke 18:8; Ibid.]

One of THE major signs that the End of the Age is truly approaching is when you see the great majority of Christian churches falling away from the Fundamentals of the Faith. A pastor or church leader that knowingly moves away from teaching the "full counsel" of God, and begins incorporating unbiblical and human elements in his services and his teaching, is literally -- and Biblically -- opening the door to Antichrist. How many well-meaning pastors have ever thought of this sober fact as they lead their churches into areas that are not Biblical?

For one pastor, this moving away from the Fundamentals of the Faith might be as simple as beginning to eliminate teachings on the inherent sinfulness of man, and allowing his sermons to be variations of the theme, "Jesus is Love", and the "You're all right; I'm all right" psychological syndrom. Or, this moving away might occur when the pastor allows unbiblical teaching into the church because such teaching has proven to be popular enough with people as to build church attendance.

What do you do if you see some of these signs in your church fellowship? These questions, and others, we cover in this new section, "Opening The Door To Antichrist".

The stakes are huge: you may be saved, but are suddenly attending a church that has -- or is in the process of -- moving away from the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Remember that Jesus promised the Rapture only to the Church of Philadelphia, the only one of the seven churches who had steadfastly remained true to the Fundamental Word of His! Listen:

"Because you have guarded and kept My word … I also will keep you safe from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world .. to try those living upon the earth." [Revelation 3:10]

How much of His Word did Jesus expect His true Church to keep? All of it! "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matthew 5:18]

Liberal pastor -- or increasingly Liberal pastor -- you are opening the door to Antichrist, and you will face this reality on the Day of the Judgment Seat of Christ!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be continued….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAUTION: The main reason for posting the following article is that we need to look at the Church Growth Movement from a different perspective. While this article is not derived from a “brotherhood” publication, please study it carefully and from the standpoint of how much this market-driven scheme for church growth has impacted your particular congregation. [Ignore the usage of terms such as “pastor” (Baptist minister) and the “Rapture” (Baptist doctrine), etc. “Christian Churches” is not used in reference to a religious group known as “Disciples of Christ”; rather, it is used in reference to “fundamentalist” churches.] The article proves that it is not only the churches of Christ that are impacted by this Movement. Is your local congregation there yet?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1506index.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Continued…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PREFACE

OUTCOME-BASED RELIGION !

If each of us could travel back in time to the late 1960s, we would find a time of great upheaval and turmoil among mainline Protestant denominations. The Ecumenical Movement was in full swing, and the Church of Rome had visions of bringing the "wandering sheep" back into the fold of the Mother Church. Concurrently, the Six Day War featured the Israeli recapture and occupation of Jerusalem for the first time since Titus destroyed the city in 70 AD. Many in Fundamentalist circles had begun to propagate the notion that the apostasy of the "End Time" which initiated its arrival in the 19th Century was approaching fruition. Some Fundamentalists went so far as to predict that the Rapture of the Church would occur before the US celebrated its Bicentennial in 1976. These factors combined to culminate in the explosive growth of Independent Baptist Churches, nondenominational Bible Churches, and other groups such as those affiliated with the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) led by Dr. Carl McIntire. In the minds of those on the front lines of the "War Against the Great End-Time Apostasy", God was gathering the final members of the True Church to prepare the Bride of Christ for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Though some realized the threat posed by groups such as the National Association of Evangelicals, none could have imagined a future deception of creeping apostasy that would corrupt the very fiber of the churches that were founded or grew from the apostasy of the 1960s.

For those of us who lived through these experiences, it is very difficult to grasp the fact that these events transpired more than 30 years ago. The Independent Baptist Movement began to falter as early as the mid 1970s, and the decade witnessed the rise of the Assemblies of God on the surging second wave of the Charismatic Movement. The local church was gradually being transformed from a place of hearing God's man expound God's Word to God's people, to a venue of religious entertainment. The situation has now deteriorated to the point that the church now must be professionally marketed to reach out into the world for more and more growth. Church growth has become the order of the day, and programs and schemes must be put in place to meet the established goals for growth. This is the basis for OUTCOME-BASED RELIGION.

Many who read this are familiar with Outcome-based Education:

"Outcome-based Education is a philosophy that promulgates the end justifies the means. Content is not specifically defined but chosen on teacher perceptions. Education under this philosophy is a continuous, life-long experience, not a preparation for life. It is a process for government telling our children how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know." (1)

Outcome-based religion is based on essentially the same principles. It also promulgates the philosophy that the end justifies the means. "The end" for the most part is church growth, and the standards of the Scripture are subordinated or ignored when perceived as a deterrent to such growth. The methods for church growth are also not specifically defined and hinge primarily on the marketing demographics of a particular community. Using a specific "black and white" guideline such as Scripture is a hindrance to these marketing efforts, and therefore the perceptions of the pastor and the consulting agency must be utilized to achieve the proper outcome. Dogmatic teaching of doctrine and theology could also be a hindrance to church growth simply because "doctrine divides". Therefore, the approach should be more of a practical guide of addressing everyday issues such as personal finance, relationships, parenting, and other social needs of those who respond to outreach programs. All programs, music, and drama productions should be choreographed with the notion of entertaining with a positive religious message so as to entice more people to church services while alienating none. Under these auspices, the church has evolved from a fortress where those of like faith were convicted of sin, reproved, nurtured, edified, instructed, and sent out into the world to reach the lost-- to an open stage for all comers to "experience God". To insure this is a positive experience for all, negative exposes of any group or individual perceived as nominally "Christian" cannot be tolerated; and an attitude of "religious-correctness" must prevail. The church also must be staffed with "Christian Counselors" schooled in "Christian Psychology" to meet the needs of people who have become frustrated in searching for answers to today's "complex problems" within the pages of that ancient, simplistic document we call the Word of God. Basically, everyone involved in the ministry must retain sight of the OUTCOME—EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBORDINATE TO THE OUTCOME.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be continued….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAUTION: The main reason for posting the following article is that we need to look at the Church Growth Movement from a different perspective. While this article is not derived from a “brotherhood” publication, please study it carefully and from the standpoint of how much this market-driven scheme for church growth has impacted your particular congregation. The article proves that it is not only the churches of Christ that are impacted by this Movement. Is your local congregation there yet?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1506index.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Continued (Summaries of Selected Chapters Only) …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chapter 4 - FUNDAMENTALISM 1950-1975 A HOUSE BUILT UPON THE SAND

One of many undeniable truths is the fact that success is measured over time, and that successful endeavors (whether spiritual or mundane) must indeed survive the test of time. The Fundamental Independent Baptist Movement of the 1950s through the early 1970s failed the test of the decades following the 1970s. The Independent Baptists have been submerged in the tidal wave of the Charismatic Movement, and many of the survivors are now drowning in the "purpose-driven", "seeker-friendly" models of modern Outcome-based Religion. How could a movement of God so vibrant have so quickly succumbed to the onslaughts of apostasy and false teaching? This chapter will delve into the history of the period from 1950 to 1975 in order to further establish the foundation for today's Outcome-based Religion.

Chapter 5 - THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

The origins of Outcome-based religions are found as pieces to a jigsaw puzzle lodged within the heart of major movements that have traversed the religious scene of the past 100 years. Perhaps none of these movements made as large a contribution to Outcome-based Religion as the 3 Waves of the Charismatic Movement. This chapter will explore not only the origins and history of Charisma, but also the source and dangers of “tongues”, “signs and wonders”, the charges of the end-time apostles, and Reconstructionist Dominion Theology.

Chapter 7 - NEW VALUES FOR A NEW MILLENNIUM

The Church of Jesus Christ is under assault from without and within. The values of the New Millennium are attacking at the very fiber of the Church, and many are surrendering to the deceptions of the modern culture instead of standing to fight. Where did this attack originate and what are the enemies of God's people seeking to accomplish? Worse yet, are some who call themselves Evangelical or Fundamentalist ignorantly aiding and abetting the enemy?

Chapter 8- PLAYING CHURCH BY THE NUMBERS - Part 1

The manuscript of Outcome-based Religion has devoted 7 chapters to develop the history and prerequisites required for one to fully comprehend the creeping apostasy that has infiltrated many (if not most) Fundamental and Evangelical churches today. Chapter 8 begins Part 2 of the book that details the men, methods, and concepts of the threat posed by the so-called "purpose-driven" or "seeker-friendly" teachings that are running roughshod over the "Evangelical Community". Chapter 8 will begin to synthesize the attributes of the historical accounts of the first 7 chapters into a concise plan for drastic change, and as a result, will create a well-documented rebuttal to those who would transform every aspect of the "Old Time Religion" into the "New Paradigm Church".

Chapter 9 - PLAYING CHURCH BY THE NUMBERS - Part 2

THE RULES OF THE NEW PARADIGM CHURCH GAME (Rules 1-3)

The Church of Jesus Christ must align itself with the principles of the Word of God. This alignment dictates that the Church is to be holy and separated from the world. For the Church to become like the world in order to reach the world is not a biblical principle, but a man-made philosophy. To add error to error, when one philosophy of man invades the Church, others will follow. The current move to transition the church to become more acceptable to the postmodern culture is nothing more than a marketing scheme to inflate the numbers on the church roles. However, the methodology used to make this transition is not only an affront to the principles of the Word of God, but is also the greatest threat to true Christianity in the world today. The review of the rules of the New Paradigm Church Game will reveal aspects of the Church Growth Movement that will sound the alarm to all who are considering participation in Outcome-based Religion.

A Letter to a “Different” Conservative Church—Being “Driven” Under the Influence of the PDC Program

———————————————————————————————————————————
A “different” conservative church in that the following letter was written and addressed by an individual to Pecan Grove Baptist Church. This letter has been shortened to stress certain items and elements that reflect the subtlety in which the Purpose Driven Church Movement is carried it. Interestingly, the church growth scheme does not always produce the intended results. And, churches of Christ are not the only victims of the subversive acts of such types of religious movements.

The entire letter may be accessed at: http://www.cephas-library.com/purposedriven/purposedriven_letter.html
———————————————————————————————————————————

A LETTER TO PECAN GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH


The Purpose Driven Church Program - September 2, 2003

Dear Pastor Scott –

First, let me say that I have enjoyed the services very much, especially your teaching / preaching. So, it's "not the preacher." Rather, it's the "program" about to be implemented at the church – the Purpose Driven Church program. Most Americans "sense" that something is wrong with our nation, but they cannot "put their finger on it." …

In much the same manner, the church in America has slowly drifted from a conservative, Bible-based church to a lukewarm church that entertains its membership, preaches a watered-down Gospel, and is more interested in social programs and political correctness than teaching God's Eternal Truth. Americans are confused about which way to turn. To the traditional church of America? To the television cartoon church? One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see that the Church is under severe attack, both from the outside and from the inside! …

Despite what we hear from church growth hype, the church is in deep trouble…. But, I am not telling you anything new. Which brings me to the Purpose Driven Church movement.

I find several things quite strange and disturbing about the Purpose Driven Church movement:

• It is inculcating not only the Southern Baptist denomination, but also other denominations as well. Hardly a coincidence? Could this be a planned sneak attack on the remnant conservative Church? It happened to many churches with the charismatic movement, and you can see where they are now – "birthing" the Holy Spirit, barking like dogs, holy laughter, slaying in the spirit, preaching all sorts of evil and false doctrine.
  
  
• It is headed up by Rick Warren, who has surrounded himself with such questionable folk and questionable counsel as Peter Drucker (a known New Ager), Robert Schuller (a known New Ager) …
  
  
• Many conservative theologians have not and will not endorse the PDC movement, for very good reasons. That raises a red flag in and of itself! To confirm my cynicism, you only have to look at many of the conservative Christian leaders who have rejected the PDC movement – Chuck Swindoll, John McArthur, Cutting Edge Ministries, others.
  
  
• It has divided church after church. There is even a web site about this phenomenon – www.concernedmembers.com. If the PDC movement were of God, it would be uniting believers, not dividing them. In this sense, there is a strong parallel to the recent charismatic movement within the church.
  
  
• The doctrinal position of Rick Warren, et al is clearly a watered-down Gospel. It starts off sounding good, but then quickly erodes into an ecumenical program. This same phenomenon happened with the Promise Keepers movement, InnerChange Freedom Initiative program, and other ministries.
  
  
• They use the term "change agents." Did this term not originate with the Communists and New Agers? … Is the church so desperate for members that we must adopt these terms and tactics?
  

And, yes, I have read and studied the PDC literature, and I fully recognize that the marketing techniques can and do work. It works for hamburgers, and I suppose it will work for souls. … No where in the Bible does it say that it is a place to bring in the unsaved, by whatever marketing means possible, in hopes that a few may be saved! … But, that is exactly what is happening. Bring in the rock-and-roll, and the young will come. Take away the hymnals and the afraid will be more at ease. Water down the message and the shallow will not be offended. … If the "old timers" resist change, encourage them to hit the road.

So why this diatribe and appeal to you? Because my wife and I have personally witnessed the death of two great churches in the Houston area from almost identical programs. The first was Westheimer Baptist Church, later changed to First Baptist West Houston, which went from a membership of 800 in the early 1980s to about 15 today. … Our most recent church, Ashford Baptist Church, went through an almost identical life-to-death cycle … it struggles for identity. ABC is now out begging members to return, and members to stay.

ABC went through the classical PDC program:

• replaced pews with chairs
  
  
• replaced the King James Version with a simple Readers' Digest version; sure the doctrine changed here and there, but that was okay, at least it was easy to read!
  
  
• replaced the choir with a guitarist / praise leader (from a totally charismatic church, of course); some of the musicians are also from the same charismatic leanings.
  
  
• replaced traditional Christian hymns with rock-and-roll praise music; the music got so shallow and ludicrous that the "house band" was even pogo-sticking on stage, just like on MTV and punk concerts
  
  
• convinced the pastor that a 10-minute politically correct sermonette was what the membership needed and wanted; he even admitted to purchasing the sermonettes from Saddleback! Gag!
  
  
• took surveys and polls to find out what the people wanted, not what God wanted, for the church, and then acted accordingly
  
  
• ugly divisions among the membership, primarily precipitated by a handful of deacons who insisted on pushing the PDC agenda; eventually, most of the old folks (i.e., >40 years old) left the church, along with their tithes and offerings, and the church is now swimming in red ink!
  
  
• advocating bringing the community into the church, by whatever means, in hopes that some may be saved some day. This included a basketball court for the local hoodlums (we have found condoms, beer cans, etc. on the church premises after the games).
  

So why am I telling you all this? …

It is easy to be deceived by the modern "church program managers" like the PDC crowd, in much the same way that believers are being deceived by Benny Hinn, Jesse DuPlantis, and the TV church circus world. … The Purpose Driven Church – it may not be what you think it is. Of course the PDC "plan" for church growth has some good ideas. Granted. But, as Paracelsus said: "The dose makes the poison." Therein lies the danger.

The Lord deserves more than a church in the community of Pecan Grove propelled by a worldly program.

May God bless you as you follow Him!

Sincerely,

Randy D. Horsak

Randy wrote:
replaced the choir with a guitarist / praise leader (from a totally charismatic church, of course); some of the musicians are also from the same charismatic leanings.

This is an untruth. I am the "charismatic" worship leader he writes about. I have been a Conservative Southern Baptist my entire life. Attended a Southern Baptist K-12 school and attended Oklahoma Baptist Univiersity. I have never been a memember of a "charismatic" church not that would matter.


Can we also get one thing straight. PDL is not about numbers so I'm not sure what book you are reading. It is trying to bring the new testament church BACK to what it was originally. I'm sure I'll be slammed but I did have to make a correction on his letter about me. I must go now and make sure I practice my "pogo" jumping now. :)


Mark

Hello, Mark:

When Randy remarked:

“… replaced the choir with a guitarist / praise leader (from a totally charismatic church, of course); some of the musicians are also from the same charismatic leanings” …

… Are you saying that even though you have never been a member of a “charismatic” church and because you have been a “Conservative Southern Baptist” your entire life … that you have NO “charismatic” leanings even to some degree? If none, then, I’d say that Randy was perhaps making a generalized statement concerning MUSIC in that church. The rest of that statement needs to be validated also. Was the choir replaced with a guitarist—that being you—meaning that the choir no longer exists? Are there other musicians … replacing the choir … with “charismatic” leanings? Would you please clarify the entire statement and not just the part that pertains to yourself?

Mark, how accurate are the other bulleted items listed by Randy:

• Chairs replacing the pews [not that it would matter]
• King James Version replaced
• Traditional Christian hymns replaced with rock-and-roll praise music
• 10-minute politically correct sermons Saddleback-style
• Surveys and polls to prove necessity of change
• Divided membership
• Use of whatever means to boost attendance

I’m asking for confirmation because you made no comments concerning the above items. Also, I’m wondering why you brought up PDL. Didn’t you by chance mistake PDL (Purpose Driven Life) for PDC (Purpose Driven Church) which is what Randy was dealing with? It is the PDC that is about numbers … and this particular drive is far from the principles and objectives of restoring the New Testament Church—in fact, it’s what we call “post-modernizing” the church and not a return to “the ancient order.”

I’m eagerly awaiting your response,

Donnie Cruz

Great, I'm sucked in! haha (kidding)

Do I have "Charismatic Leanings"? Wow, what a fun question. I guess that would have to be defined. Do I raise my hands during Praise and Worship? Yes. If you are talking about speaking in tongues then the answer is no AND not that I don't believe in them but I don't have that particular gift AND if I had the gift it would be at home in my private prayer closet or with an interpreter present as scripture commands. (Mouth full and another subject). Would you honestly consider raising hands Charismatic Leanings? If so I guess I'm guilty as charged.

On the other points per your request....

• Chairs replacing the pews
[As you said it doesn't matter but for the record we never had pews.]

• King James Version replaced
[I believe we read from several different versions. I personally prefer the NIV.]

• Traditional Christian hymns replaced with rock-and-roll praise music.
[We do both all though I'd argue the term "rock-and-roll"].

• 10-minute politically correct sermons Saddleback-style
[WAY off. If you want to know the truth the music service usually ends at 11:25 and the pastor speaks beyond 12:00. If you care to check out two of our last sermons on our website you will see that the sermon lasted 55 minutes which is hardly the 10 minutes claimed.]

• Surveys and polls to prove necessity of change
[This was done by our formal Education Director. I can honestly say it was not to “necessitate change” but I guess you'll have to take my word for it.]

• Divided membership
[There was division in the church over the pastor I'm ashamed to admit. Are we the first church with division? No. Will there be a perfect church? Not until Christ himself comes back. I will say the church went through what I would call a “well needed cleansing time”. I will also say that our church has literally been on its knees repenting towards the way some things were handled. It's very easy for a disgruntled member to leave and throw out their obviously tainted opinions on a Website and not stick around to help rebuild or join in repentance with his or her brothers and sisters. I honestly find it quite sad.]

• Use of whatever means to boost attendance
[The only means that I have ever heard were how to better minister to our surrounding community. I for one have said I'd like to see us growing in numbers from NEW believers. I could care less personally about trying to have church hoppers boost our numbers. Any “means” are scripturally based and I would argue are trying to take the church BACK to a TRUE New Testament based church which is one reason I personally embrace the PDL. I honestly have not read the PDC and you are correct I did confuse what Randy was referring to.]

I guess that’s it. I’m sure we will not agree on everything. I hope we can agree that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and that we as believers should be preaching this daily to a world that is running out of time. I for one do not think if we’re sitting on pews, singing a Hymn, or playing a guitar has anything to do with that calling to spread the gospel. If we meet out on the lawn and preach the gospel that will be fine with me. I believe God is just as much there as He is in any Cathedral with an organ and pews.

Thank you for you time
Mark McCurdy

One last thing and then I must move on.

I need to correct the notion that PDC was the downfall of our church. Ashford Baptist Church was FOUNDED on PDC from day one. Our "decline" came with problems stemmed around our former pastor and not because of PDC as suggested by Randy since PDC was there from day one.

I've enjoyed the conversation with you my brother and may the presence of God be in both our churches and lives.

Thank you,
Mark McCurdy

Mark,

You really raised my level of curiosity when you made the following statement:

“I need to correct the notion that PDC was the downfall of our church. Ashford Baptist Church was FOUNDED on PDC from day one. Our ‘decline’ came with problems stemmed around our former pastor and not because of PDC as suggested by Randy since PDC was there from day one.”

In my original post above, dated January 7, 2004, I provided a link to Randy’s entire original letter to Pecan Grove Baptist Church as follows:

http://www.cephas-library.com/purposedriven/purposedriven_letter.html.

Well, I decided to read the entire letter again, since I had reported only the highlights and other portions of interest so that the post would not be so lengthy. As you know, Randy mentioned the Westheimer Baptist Church, which changed its name to First Baptist West Houston. Then, he elaborated on your church as follows:

“Our most recent church, Ashford Baptist Church, went through an almost identical life-to-death cycle. It started off about a decade ago as a conservative church. Now, with all three of the pastors gone, and essentially all the core membership gone, it struggles for identity. ABC is now out begging members to return, and members to stay. It is trying to find grants and gifts to stay afloat. It is asking other churches for help. Since when did Christ want His church to be a beggar? He told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it! Well, that is, if we do things according to His way, and not ours. But, ABC had a better idea.......... from Rick Warren, et al.”

Randy followed that with a list of bulleted items on how “ABC went through the classical PDC program.” There was an additional comment to the last item on “advocating bringing the community into the church, by whatever means” as follows: “This included sharing space with a psychologist. Looking to share space with Alcoholics Anonymous. Could the moonies be next?”

Let me just post the rest of Randy’s letter to PGBC:

“Ironically, when ABC was on the ropes, with all 3 pastors gone, some of the most ardent advocates of the PDC movement left the church. I suppose their purpose had been fulfilled. Gee, could there be those in church whose purpose is to destroy the church? Could this be what Jesus referred to in the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew? Remember His answer: an enemy hath done this. Who could this enemy be?

So why am I telling you all this? Because I sincerely believe that you are not a deceptive person, and that in your heart you desire to do the Lord's will for PGBC and its membership. Your heart is in the ministry, and you desire to conform to Christ's instructions given in the Bible. I believe that you want to be the watchful shepherd of your flock.

But, Pastor Scott, with all my heart I think they you are about to "drink the Kool-aid."

It is easy to be deceived by the modern "church program managers" like the PDC crowd, in much the same way that believers are being deceived by Benny Hinn, Jesse DuPlantis, and the TV church circus world. The church is being deceived by the Freemason influence. The church is being deceived by the charismatic movement. The church is being deceived by the ecumenical movement. And, sadly, I believe the same is true with the Purpose Driven Church movement.

The Purpose Driven Church – it may not be what you think it is. Of course the PDC "plan" for church growth has some good ideas. Granted. But, as Paracelsus said: "The dose makes the poison." Therein lies the danger. And, Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, does he not?

Fortunately, you have several weeks remaining before you kick the PDC movement into high gear for PGBC. Time to read up on the topic. Time to reflect. Time to pray. Time to seek God and ask Him what He wants with His church. Remember, you only want a church that you are willing to give an account of some day to Jesus Himself.

I have attached some articles critiquing the PDC movement. They are written by conservative, traditional men of God. Definitely worth reading! I hope you take the time to do so.

Please do not take this letter as an attack. I pray that God will lead you. Please take some quiet time and seek confirmation from the Lord that what you are about to do is really His will.

I know that if you seek His guidance on this matter, that you will have second thoughts. I did. Others did. I cannot believe that the conservative membership of PGBC has not expressed at least some concern to you over this matter.

The Lord deserves more than a church in the community of Pecan Grove propelled by a worldly program.

May God bless you as you follow Him!

Sincerely, Randy D. Horsak

___________________________________________________

Mark, would you like to discuss the issue with Randy one-on-one? Don’t you think that Randy has made some valid points in his letter to said Pastor Scott?

Donnie Cruz

Mark,

Thank you for taking time to respond. I hope you do understand that the message I am trying to convey in pursuing this discussion is not to condemn changes—which would probably make a good, different topic altogether. Some changes are good especially when they’re necessitated by technological advances but do not alter God’s truth. Rather, the intent is to identify the nature of situations and occurrences so that we can differentiate “what was then” from “what is now” in a particular congregation. You’re familiar with some of those “before-and-after” commercials, aren’t you? In our case here, it’s the “before-and-after” PDC.

With regard to “charismatic leanings,” raising hands itself is not wrong. By the way, in the Baptist Church, has the assembly always been called “praise and worship” or was it called “worship service” in past (old) generations? I’m interested in knowing. I think this may have something to do with what we’re dealing with here. I envision “worship services” as something considered by the “X-Y-ZZZ” generation [I made that up] as being dull, retarded, outmoded, outdated, boring because of those old sad hymns and with none of the upbeat “praise” songs that make you want to dance and clap and raise your hands and whistle and make all sorts of vocal variations during singing. Anyway, I would not personally raise hands where I had not done it before and because seeing others do it make me want to do a little imitating, instead of meditating. I would not do it, even if I had the “urge” to do so when I realize that it would be a distraction to others in the gathering. Raising hands is normally associated with being a charismatic activity. Without being judgmental, if you raise your hands during “praise and worship” now whereas you did not before, I would say that you probably have “charismatic leanings.”

Speaking in tongues served its purpose especially when the church was about to be established and was evident in the early life of the church during the lifetimes of the apostles. But tongues would cease and they have—so “speaking in tongues” was a gift, a thing of the past. In Acts, the speaking was not gibberish as people heard and understood their own different, respective languages spoken.

On the other points....

• Chairs replacing the pews
[I was surprised when you said that you never had pews. Did you have those comfortable individual cushioned seats, then? I would expect those somewhat uncomfortable chairs to be in classrooms only, but not in the auditorium or in the main assembly area. So, what did the chairs replace, then?]

• King James Version replaced
[I’m sure that members use different versions and have differing preferences. The real question is in regard to what the local church considers its “official” version of the Bible, such as the one used in congregational or responsive readings. In other words, if your church uses a big screen and PowerPoint to display the Scripture text, where is the displayed text for reading taken from what version?]

• Traditional Christian hymns replaced with rock-and-roll praise music.
[The term “rock-and-roll” praise music reminds me of the label “holy roller” and, therefore, charismatic—this is a personal perception and I’m joking. What about “Christian rock” or “Christian rock and rap”? Still the question is: was it totally and only traditional Christian hymns in the past?]

• 10-minute politically correct sermons Saddleback-style
[Part of the reason why the 10-minute sermonette was mentioned is that in many PDC-driven churches, the “musical worship service” accounts for a good 75% of the assembly period, thus, the remaining period is devoted to preaching, which in itself may consist of a lot of “religious” jokes and funny stories. Does your music service begin at 11:00?]

• Surveys and polls to prove necessity of change
[It’s possible that you were made to believe and convinced that surveying or polling was not to “necessitate change”—in this way you’re being honest about it. But from experiences by various churches in the PDC programming, the process is subtle. You’ve heard of biased or skewed polling to attain desired results, haven’t you?]

• Divided membership
[We know that church division is not an uncommon occurrence. It is factual that because of its nature, the PDC programming may not be favorable to many members of a congregation. It causes heartaches, separation of certain members of a family going to different churches while others remain, alienation of long-time members who seek fellowship somewhere else. The real question is—did this occur at your church during the implementation of the Saddleback program? We must realize that the change advocates have prepared solutions to problems that they have created in the first place.]

• Use of whatever means to boost attendance
[You said: “I could care less personally about trying to have church hoppers boost our numbers. Any ‘means’ are scripturally based.” Could you provide examples, please?

As I have already mentioned, my interest here is knowing more about the changes implemented in your church based on the Saddleback program and the impact of these changes. As you and I know, methodologies are not the problem ordinarily. It is when methodologies cause the truth to be distorted (definitely the biggest problem) or that cause members to be alienated that we have a problem with.

Again, thank you for your input and for clarifying.

Donnie Cruz

I’ll start by saying I appreciate your questions and I can sense you are asking them with an attitude of really wanting to know what happened in our church. Thank you for your kind attitude. I’m going to avoid the tongues issue and lifting of hands because that really is another topic. I also would like to add that your question about meeting with Randy One on One was something I was going to post this morning. :) That was part of my beef with his posting to be honest. Randy never approached me and instead decided to air this on a public forum. I think you’d agree scripturally if there was a honest concern about the way worship is handled around our church then the correct behavior would have been to seek me out one on one. Then as you know return with two or three and then if no result to take it before the church. I am at work so I’m sorry if I do not have time to answer these in a lengthy manner but I’ll quickly answer some of your questions….

On the other points....

• Chairs replacing the pews
[I was surprised when you said that you never had pews. Did you have those comfortable individual cushioned seats, then? I would expect those somewhat uncomfortable chairs to be in classrooms only, but not in the auditorium or in the main assembly area. So, what did the chairs replace, then?]

The church started in a shopping center 10+ years ago. From the beginning chairs were used and I don’t even think they had a cushion so they were not comfortable hahaha. When we started our building program the church moved into a Temporary auditorium which will one day be our Youth Room/Fellowship Hall. We did upgrade our chairs so they now have cushions. To this day the Main Sanctuary is uncompleted. So in answer to your question … we never had pews and the new design for the new sanctuary does not call for them as well.

• King James Version replaced
[I’m sure that members use different versions and have differing preferences. The real question is in regard to what the local church considers its “official” version of the Bible, such as the one used in congregational or responsive readings. In other words, if your church uses a big screen and PowerPoint to display the Scripture text, where is the displayed text for reading taken from what version?]

This hopefully won’t turn into another post BUT I personally think the King James version is the least accurate translation. That being said I also don’t see it as a “bad” translation … just that I think there are more accurate versions. I arrive at this view from my studies at Oklahoma Baptist University and John Brown University. Again this could be a completely different post and I wish I had more time to go into it. I personally lean towards the NIV version which is the version we have in the back of our seats and use on Power Point.

• Traditional Christian hymns replaced with rock-and-roll praise music.
[The term “rock-and-roll” praise music reminds me of the label “holy roller” and, therefore, charismatic—this is a personal perception and I’m joking. What about “Christian rock” or “Christian rock and rap”? Still the question is: was it totally and only traditional Christian hymns in the past?]

No it was not a “totally and only traditional Christian Hymns in the past”. I was not there but I am good friends with the previous Worship Leader and several of the original founders. In fact I was told they NEVER did hymns from day one. I tend to blend my music program because I honestly enjoy some of the older hymns. I do “spice” them up musically. :)

• 10-minute politically correct sermons Saddleback-style
[Part of the reason why the 10-minute sermonette was mentioned is that in many PDC-driven churches, the “musical worship service” accounts for a good 75% of the assembly period, thus, the remaining period is devoted to preaching, which in itself may consist of a lot of “religious” jokes and funny stories. Does your music service begin at 11:00?]

Our service begins at 11:00 and I usually end the music portion at 10:25. This Sunday the invitation started around 12:05. So 25 minutes of music and 40 minutes of the message. I think you should know that we are currently with out a pastor. The old pastor that Randy is probably referring to preached 30 minutes on average. I personally am pushing for a service that starts 30 minutes earlier as soon as a pastor is in place. That way music and the sermon can be expanded. :)

• Surveys and polls to prove necessity of change
[It’s possible that you were made to believe and convinced that surveying or polling was not to “necessitate change”—in this way you’re being honest about it. But from experiences by various churches in the PDC programming, the process is subtle. You’ve heard of biased or skewed polling to attain desired results, haven’t you?]

The only poll that was ever taken and the only one I can think of that Randy would be talking about is a poll about the service in general. I will also add that I was not the worship leader at the time. Music was on the list … “Prefer Hymns” etc .. that type of question. I believe the Leaders at the time were trying to determine if we should have two services which they did start. I will also add that I was against two worship services because you divide the church family. If you are out of room … sure then start one but in our case there was no reason to start a second service. I will also add that a poll is probably a stupid thing to do in a church. The church leaders should be in prayer and under the direction of the Lord and not have to take polls for direction. I was not on staff at the time. :)

• Divided membership
[We know that church division is not an uncommon occurrence. It is factual that because of its nature, the PDC programming may not be favorable to many members of a congregation. It causes heartaches, separation of certain members of a family going to different churches while others remain, alienation of long-time members who seek fellowship somewhere else. The real question is—did this occur at your church during the implementation of the Saddleback program? We must realize that the change advocates have prepared solutions to problems that they have created in the first place.]

I must repeat … our church was a PDC church from day one. As far as your comments on “heartache” etc. I understand what you are saying but I will also add that PDC and PDL are EXTREMELY about unity in the church. I was just reading my PDL book last night and the chapter was about this very subject and how Paul preached and preached about it. I try to be sensitive to our older members and the SMALL group of members who still enjoy the older hymns. I also receive comments of appreciation for doing that from some of our oldest members. We must also remember though that “It’s Not About Me”. (The opening line of the PDL book). People tend to forget that and it’s easy to do … I’ve been guilty myself. :)

• Use of whatever means to boost attendance
[You said: “I could care less personally about trying to have church hoppers boost our numbers. Any ‘means’ are scripturally based.” Could you provide examples, please?

My point here was that I’m more concerned about boosting one number in our church. That number is additions to the family of God. A lot of churches are about numbers period. They go after members of other churches … see what I’m saying? That’s all I was saying and surely you can’t disagree with that. I see 2nd Baptist here in Houston, TX and they will have Sundays where they Baptize 300+ people that run all afternoon. THAT is what it is about and THAT is a church doing what the church is supposed to do.


As I have already mentioned, my interest here is knowing more about the changes implemented in your church based on the Saddleback program and the impact of these changes.

I understand and again I appreciate your spirit in asking these questions. Again, no changes were made … Ashford was founded on the PDC principals and grew rapidly at first. The “down fall” came because of other reasons that our internal to our church and really don’t need to be posted on the web. I can ASSURE you they had nothing to do with PDL which was already in place. I will also add that things are turning around and Ashford is seeking God’s face everyday. Let’s just say we had a “cleansing” time that needed to take place. 

Mark

Mark,

I agree with you that the “tongues” and “lifting of hands” issues can end up being discussed unendingly. So, let’s not even go there … perhaps at some other time when someone is brave and resourceful enough to bring up, begin and carry on the discussion without diverting.

At the outset, if your meeting with Randy 1:1 is not a possibility (I’m assuming that he is still a member of Ashford Baptist Church), I think it would be a good idea, instead, to have a civil dialogue on this forum between you and him, as well as others who might want to participate. But that depends on Randy’s consent. Although he did mention www.concernedmembers.com in his letter, I’m not sure how frequently he visits this site. Anyway, everyone’s comments will be documented; one poster will have a better grasp of what the other is saying and, thus, is able to respond more ably.

There are many factors involved in determining the PDC programming influences in a congregation that is only 10+ years old. I think it is common knowledge that the “chairs” seating arrangement is normally associated with the “contemporary” or “community church” assemblies. It may have something to do with the “mobility” dimension—kneeling or rolling on the floor [Oops! It sounds like holy-rolling, huh … hmmm] or dancing for joy … whatever … without folks pushing and pulling the heavy pews for space and breaking their backs. You know, I’m joking; but it may be true.

The point you stated is that ABC had its beginning when the PDC program was being implemented—let me add the fact that the Community Church and/or Contemporary Movements were already prevalent at that time. What if ABC had started 50 years ago and then the PDC program implemented 10 years ago? So, in a way, I can see why Randy made those comments. At the same time you’ve told us the fact that you “never had pews.” So, Mark, let me smile a little when you say “and the new design for the new sanctuary does not call for them [pews] as well.” [I’m taking that to mean that with the mobile chairs “holy-rolling” will go on. :) :) :) ].

What I described above is simply speculation on my part, OK?—we need to laugh a little, don’t we? Of interest to me, though, is the year in which you became a member [or began worshipping] at the Ashford Church. Has Randy been affiliated with Ashford since its beginning? I’m just wondering.

I’ll probably have other questions and comments to communicate with you, Mark, if or when time permits. For now, there’s one more specific thing I would like to know from you. You’ve said that you personally prefer the NIV version based on what you studied at O.B.U. and John Brown U. I beg to differ with you—I prefer the KJV for its elegance and its accuracy. (We have a thread dealing with the use of the NIV—it’s been a while since the last post.) Well, the question which I think you haven’t completely answered yet is this: During congregational reading where the passage or text is shown on the screen, do you know if the reference is from the NIV? This may not be a fair question if your church is not using PowerPoint or the screen at this time. If not, does any of your publication or the church bulletin quote passages from the NIV consistently?

Mark, I really appreciate your “conversation” with me. I hope I’m not bugging you too much.

Donnie

[Has Randy been affiliated with Ashford since its beginning? I’m just wondering.]

I'm not sure to be honest. I think so but not sure. I do know they were involved early on in the churches history.

[Well, the question which I think you haven’t completely answered yet is this: During congregational reading where the passage or text is shown on the screen, do you know if the reference is from the NIV? This may not be a fair question if your church is not using PowerPoint or the screen at this time. If not, does any of your publication or the church bulletin quote passages from the NIV consistently?]

Yes, we do have Power Point and the version displayed 90% of the time is NIV. I think I have seen KJV a few times as well but mostly NIV. We also have bibles in the back of our chairs (We find them useful to whack the snakes over the head when they get loose hahaha) which are the NIV version.

I promise if you were to visited our church I really don't think you'd be disappointed. I think you have a view of us being a "wild" hands in the airs .. speaking in tongues.. rolling in the floors etc church. I can assure you we are not. We're pretty much a straight forward Southern Baptist Church ... ok we do have drums. :)

Might I ask what denomination you affiliate with? Just curious, it would help me gain perspective on where you are coming from.

Mark

Mark,

In all of your posts, you have presented some points of interest including your opposition to having two different “styles” of worship services. Often in churches that are going through the “transformation” or restructuring process, it is difficult to get the leaders to understand that diversity in this situation promotes or fosters division, rather than unity. You’ve also mentioned certain ideas that I agree with, that I’m convinced are accurately stated. For example, you said: “A lot of churches are about numbers period. They go after members of other churches … see what I’m saying? That’s all I was saying and surely you can’t disagree with that.” You are exactly right and I can’t disagree with that. I believe that the mega Community Churches are doing just that as they grow “by leaps and bounds.”

There are other things that I would like to pursue further such as about surveys and polling, about the PDC and PDL programs. But I gather that you have a major role at Ashford, especially since you said “that we are currently without a pastor,” and you are busy. Besides, I feel that you have already stated what you needed to, from your perspective, pertinent to Randy’s letter to Pecan Grove.

Sorry, I did not mean to give that kind of an impression I have of the Ashford Church. I am fully aware of the “demeanor” of a typical Southern Baptist Church, unless it has become totally “charismatic.” I have attended “conservative” Baptist Church services before, so I know. And if I were to visit Ashford, I would not expect anything differently except, perhaps, for the drums—but you have already warned me— —right?

As to your question to me about the denomination I affiliate with, I am not giving you an answer that you would normally expect. Let me say what I honestly feel, i.e., I do not consider Christ’s church a denomination—I simply do not look at it that way. It is that church of Christ or His family that I am a member of.

Mark, I purchased a book sometime ago that I have just started reading. Here I am—I haven’t even finished reading—but I’m already recommending it to you … something that you might want to read for pleasure or for information or for something to critique. You may already have a copy of it. If not, you can order and purchase it for about $15. I’m thinking about initiating a new thread on this forum and devoting the entire thread to discussing the contents of this book. Now, I think I have gotten your attention—it should get your attention. LOL! On the book cover, it states: “Confessions of a Former Worship Leader.” The eye-catching title is: “Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement” by Dan Lucarini. Would you believe that the cover has a picture of “drums” —of all things! Anyway, here’s the “Dedication”:

“This book is dedicated to the authors, pastors, music ministers and other church leaders who came before me. They never ceased to warn us about the dangers of rock music to a Christian; but we did not take heed. They had the courage to confront others in the church who defended every controversial and sensual music style; but in return we heaped scorn upon them. When they dared to oppose the contemporary music invasion into the church service itself, we called them legalists and worse. Many have sacrificed popularity and seen their ministry opportunities limited, because their consciences dictated they must take a stand. To them, we owe an apology and a debt of gratitude. This book is an attempt to pay a small portion of that debt.”

I am personally grateful and glad for your participation in the discussion of Randy’s letter to Pecan Grove by expressing your thoughts from your perspective. I honestly believe that it was not Randy’s objective to attack anyone personally or any of the churches mentioned. I see the central theme of the letter as having to do with what the culture-driven approach to church growth yields, effects and affects. Again, thanks for clarifying certain issues and for providing details and specifics relating to the churches mentioned in the letter.

Donnie

I really have appreciated this civil discussion.This is the kind of discourse I was hoping to find on the this site. I wonder if either of you would reply to this query: do you think that the impression of the PDC movement is vastly different when viewed through the lens of the leaders versus the members?? I personally see the PDC movement as essentially a severing of the spinal cord with the leaders being the brains but no longer being responsive to the members of the body, numbed if you will to the fingers and toes and legs, etc. Our PDC leaders slowly came to say: like it or leave. And through their numbness they no longer expressed any caring about the body (just about those seeking). The only ones to make decisions are the leaders and only to follow the Saddleback model. I think that this leads to happy leaders and happy peripheral members but those who still want to see the Spirit move in the Body become disillusioned. Any thoughts?? Again, I appreciate the tone and willingness to discuss.

First, I trust that you’re not offended that I’m not able to address you in a more personable manner as I would like. I guess I could call you “Kansas Christian” or “KS” or “KS Christian”—whichever you prefer—as that would seem to make our posts and responses a little more conversational.

You brought up a very important question. It’s really more than a question. It is thought-provoking in that many church leaders and members probably haven’t heard of—much less grasp—the thought expressed in your very well-constructed statement (or premise, I should say).

Your question is—let me repeat: “Do you think that the impression of the PDC movement is vastly different when viewed through the lens of the leaders versus the members?”

I believe that your question would be a little more explicit if it were expressed as follows: “Do you think that the impression [to whom] of the PDC movement is vastly different when viewed [by whom] through the lens of the leaders versus the members?” In other words, are only the leaders and members of a particular congregation or church involved in the analysis or assessment—and none from outside this church? Or, is it only those outside the congregation looking in? Or, is it simply a generalized perception?

Right off, I agree with your own assessment of the PDC movement as you see it personally. The PDC movement is “seeker-oriented” rather than “member-oriented”—the process that reaches out to those to be brought in … often to the neglect of those already in. You have clearly illustrated this from your own perspective and experience. I agree that there is a ready response on the part of the PDC advocates to simply say: “Like it or get over it—we’ve got more seeking to do … we must move on.” “Like it or leave” is very hurtful and alienating. The fact, though, is that it is an integral part of the PDC scheme to have a “conflict resolution” procedure in place—a “disaster recovery” process that the PDC proponents are prepared to implement when problems arise, problems which they have created themselves in the first place.

It would be nice to continue this discussion a little further if we had more concrete examples of events and occurrences within a particular church or congregation such as yours. Perhaps, you could provide us with additional background, e.g., at least the church affiliation or group (Baptist, Christian Church, etc.) without necessarily giving us the locality—unless it does not matter to you. One reason for this, for example, is that “leadership” may be defined or identified differently in the Presbyterian mold than it is in the Baptist faith, etc., etc. Leadership in one major religious faith may involve the “pastor” (preacher) and his associates, whereas in another, it may involve a group of men called “elders.” Furthermore, we know that the PDC program is embraced by different religious groups and then only by certain congregations within a group. Results, reactions and repercussions vary among the different religious groups.

You stated it very well—“I think that this [Saddleback model] leads to happy leaders and happy peripheral members but [all the others] become disillusioned. ” There is a thread that might be of interest to you and you might have already looked at it—it’s titled “A New Big Picture: ‘The Change Agents Are Coming! The Change Agents Are Coming!’” It deals with issues and problems related to the Change, Contemporary and Community Church Movements in this post-modern era.

Thank you for presenting a fresh outlook on the PDC programming and for initiating this conversation. Any thoughts on “de-programming”?

Donnie

Thank you for your response. I did not want to create a new thread but wondered if Mark's view (as a leader in a PDC church) is quite different than those of the Christian members. My husband and I joined a Baptist church when we moved into this area. We actually were pleased with the "casual dress, contemporary music and relevent sermons" and did not mind when our church name changed and excluded any denomination. We became concerned when my husband and I were told that our pastor "gets his sermons off the internet". When we tried to talk to him about it we discovered a few things about the PDC churches (at least ours and from what I have read others as well). First, you are not to ask questions. It became clear that our future involvement in the church would be limited (our pastor selects all members of the standing boards and these are hand picked to not oppose his ideas) and we were actually told to leave. We were told that our pastor does not have to give credit for his sources because Rick Warren says it is OK (our comments regarding what the Bible has to say about this were dismissed). We asked for lay input (maybe the congregation should have a say in if they think this is important) but were turned down. We are now seeking a non-PDC home. It has been very difficult. My husband was told that he must not be growing spiritually if he would question the leadership of his church. The leadership has no idea how hard it is to discern a problem and try to address them. We found out that the PDC plan is to eliminate lay input, which seems less like a church and more like a club. So you see, the leaders may feel really good and feel like they make really good decisions, but in my mind, and when I read the scriptures, I see phrases in Acts that say "in the whole assembly" which I believe implies that decisions were decided and approved on by the moving of the body. I know that that may slow things down but a dictatorship is not good in a family, church or country. We need checks and balances and open communication. It was strange to me that in asking for greater truth and more honesty we were called gossips and troublemakers. Mark seems like a really nice guy and my former pastors as well seem great as individuals but the question becomes "what is church?" and "what is a pastor?". Because we want to be involved through prayer and communication in the decisions of our church, we have personally decided to find a non-PDC church (although they are "all the rage" in our area and it is hard to find one that is not on the bandwagon. Sorry to not give my name, I dont want to give you a fake one and my name is quite distinctive. It is quite sad, but I fear repercussions from my former church if I gave my name or the name of the church.

I respect your decision not to identify yourself personally, as well as your local church. (I think I was able to sense that at the outset.) Since you had no objection to my addressing you as K.C.—which is short and easy to “say”—I will do just that. Now, K.C., it was really important that you identified for us the name of the major religious group that your particular church is involved in the PDC programming. Thanks for that.

It is interesting that you specifically mentioned a number of obvious characteristics associated with the PDC scheme. I am not using the word “scheme” in the same sense as in “God’s scheme of redemption,” since I know that the salvation plan is all revealed in God’s word—and with out finite minds, we are not authorized to modify God’s plan. Rather, I am referring to Rick Warren’s Saddleback model as a “scheme” with some negative connotation in that his model attempts to improvise or improve upon God’s plan unnecessarily and contrary to the pattern or model set forth in the New Testament.

Arguments can be made about “casual dress” and one of several issues relative to this topic alone has something to do in the realm of offering our best to the Master in contrast to offering our best when it comes to social events. For example, if a Christian can and does attend a social affair best dressed, why not then in a worship assembly? Then, such a discussion may extend to something else as in—why shouldn’t we have any consideration for those who are able to dress casually only, or that God does not look at the individual outwardly. My point is—if there was something that we might look at as a non-salvation issue that this would be one of them. And a key factor for church members is the recognition of the fact that “casual dress” is one of the signs easily identifiable with the PDC model. In other words, where “casual dress” is now in vogue in the worship assembly (and it had not been before), it is a good sign that such church is subtly undergoing a transformation process via the PDC scheme.

K.C., you also mentioned “contemporary music”—which has been and is still being discussed on this forum quite extensively. I have no opposition to contemporary hymns that convey the message of truth. Notice how I’m carefully using the expression “contemporary hymns”—it is in the same manner as when I’m referring to “classic Christian hymns” that have stood the “test of truth” and time. I would point out that when contemporary music alters or is void of God’s truth or that when it adversely impacts or affects reverential and awe-directed worship in the assembly, that’s when I part company with the proponents of contemporary music. Whether one is for or against contemporary music, when “contemporary musical worship” dominates the major portion of the assembly period now (whereas it did not before), this is definitely a good indication that the PDC model has already been implemented.

The same is true with watered down sermons. Truth should never be compromised. Relevancy can be achieved without undermining the gospel of truth. A good example of compromising the truth is when self-glorification or feeling good about self or a good self-esteem becomes the major emphasis in Christian living. A little mistake or fault is no substitute for sin; that the disobedient will be punished in the end and the believers who remain faithful will be reward life eternal in heaven are realities. How can we heed the warning if heaven or hell, eternal reward or eternal punishment, is no longer being preached?

Sorry, I got a little carried away there. My point is that those few issues above may be discussed further at some other time, if you’re interested in pursuing them. Although, I have no intention of discussing other items at this point, I would like to state that in the churches of Christ, there is a strong opposition to changing the church name to something else that drops the name of Christ. Also, there are some serious questions involved in the area of “fellowshipping” because of our understanding of what the truth reveals about the conditions that the unconverted must meet in order to receive the free offer of God’s redemption in the blood of the Lamb. This topic of “fellowship” (along with denominationalism) is another one of those issues that can be argued for and against forevermore.

I’m still getting carried away here. We haven’t even discussed other items that you consider “real” issues from your perspectives and based on the experiences you’ve had with the local Baptist Church you were/have been affiliated with. We’ll set aside time after today (and please remind me, if necessary) to discussing the following:

-- Your pastor who “gets his sermons off the internet”
-- Members not being allowed to ask questions—the “standing boards”
-- “If you don’t like it, leave…” remarks by the leadership
-- Rick Warren not giving sources credit they deserve
-- Seeking a non-PDC home
-- The local church being like a social club
-- … and so much more

I sense that one of the main issues you are bringing to the table is one of leadership. I’ll admit that it will be very difficult to discuss this issue, important as it is. Let me tell you why. In churches of Christ (and you may not know this, but), congregations are autonomous. Each congregation has its own leaders, scripturally defined as “elders” (a.k.a. “bishops” or “shepherds [pastors]” used interchangeably because of the various roles and tasks they’re involved in)—these are the congregation’s leaders. In-depth study of the scriptures will prove the truth about this group of men who are to lead the church or tend the flock. These men [elders] are not to be confused with the one or ones who are the “pulpit” evangelist(s) or preacher(s).

The Baptist faith, on the other hand, does not have a group of men equivalent to the “elders” that the New Testament speaks of as the leaders scripturally designated as governing the local church. Instead, the Baptist local church’s pastor or pastors [pulpit preachers] are its leaders. It is important to make that distinction for the sake of our discussion.

[This is probably not a very good stopping point. But let me close for now by saying that I really appreciate your taking time to discuss certain problems that you and your husband are encountering—i.e., in a more specific manner. I believe that there are others that share the same feeling as I do and as you do towards the PDC program that many churches from various religious groups have embraced. In one of your last statements, you said— … but the question becomes "what is church?" and "what is a pastor?" Very interesting! I’d like to say that these are excellent questions—and can lead to endless debates and discussions. As you can probably tell, my head is spinning right now—not knowing which direction this discussion is going. Perhaps, I need to ask you to list and sequence the items that you would like to discuss in relation to the PDL program. Would you like to do this for us, please?]

To be continued later—OK? Meanwhile, please feel free to interject comments as we further go on with our discussion.

Donnie

I have been very hesitant before to say much because of the tone of some of the discussions. Also because at one time I was one who would have said "These people are paranoid crazies who see trouble everywhere and can't just be happy about the good..." but I have done a 180 turn because we have been down the path as members for 6 years in a PDC church and we see where it leads. Our eyes were opened because of the sermon issue. When we went to the pastor one on one and got nowhere then we went in a group and now to the deacons. We were naive enough (although highly educated people)to believe that when our pastor told stories that they were his and that he wrote the sermons and that the CLASSes were written by him. We would not have thought less of him if he had spoken the truth but it is disheartening to be told "yes it is the truth but dont tell anybody". We realized that the covenent we had so blindly signed is wrong (if anything we should at least change it to "follow the leaders as they follow Christ" because as it stands you are told that any opposition is against this thing you signed). My point of butting in to your conversation with the nice music minister (Mark) was to say that as leaders I am sure they are thinking they are making the best and most spiritual decisions but as a member of the body I have learned through our sermon issue that the body needs to be involved and that anybody, leader or not, is capable of being deceived by their own sin and blinded to their own motives so I think that some kind of Body input is desirable for church functioning. I know many church bodies (Catholicism for example)trust their leader explicitly and the direction of the church is hierarchal in nature. I guess my bent is toward the Congregational style of church government and the PDC church is very heirarchal (whether they state that or not)--. We have worked through the issues we personally have with the PDC church and find that we oppose it and choose to go elsewhere. This website has provided some links that are very good and share testimonies that are so similar to ours that it is eerie. We are at peace with our decision and not bitter. Now I am kind of rambling but I do appreciate your interest and again I was trying mostly to try to explain why Mark may not see some of the problems in the PDC movement because as a leader he looks through the other lens...KC

KC,

I believe it has benefited you that the sermon issue came about. There’s nothing more I can add to what you have already said that the preacher should have been truthful about it in the first place. I find it hard to believe when you were told that your preacher “does not have to give credit for his sources because Rick Warren says it is OK.” When I hear the word “sermon,” I’m reminded of a part of the PDC scheme in which the sermon should be shorter and water-downed, include jokes and dramatic stories, not mention punishment in hell for the disobedient, substitute fault for sin, etc., so as to make it less boring and more acceptable to the audience.

You mentioned the covenant that you “blindly signed.” From what I have read and learned, when the PDC program is implemented in a congregation, existing members must still fulfill a number of requirements for membership—which translates to “nullifying” the original membership. One of these requirements is a “signed commitment to abide by the Church’s membership covenant” which is patterned after the Saddleback model. This man-made covenant, although it references passages in the Bible, is in itself not scripture-based. We have the New Testament (which also means “covenant”) that Christians are to live by. It contains the doctrine of Christ and commands and principles for Christian living. It contains epistles and letters written to various churches, and these are applicable to the church in the 21st century. One prime example of the error in the PDC covenant is tithing, which is an Old Testament law, just as resting on the Sabbath day and offering blood or animal sacrifices were in the OT. New Testament Christians are to give liberally and according to their means.

Regarding leadership in the church, the New Testament clearly illustrates congregational autonomy—so your thought on this is scripture-based. The hierarchical structure, such as that of the Roman Catholic Church, is a type of organization that is foreign to the Bible. Church autonomy allows a local congregation to have a group of elders who are the leaders of the local church. The NT refers to elders as bishops and shepherds (pastors)—so these labels are used interchangeably when referring to the leaders of the church (I Timothy, Titus, etc.). (Please note that the word “pastor” in the same connotation as “elder” is not what is commonly known to the religious world in general as the pastor—the pulpit minister.) Anyway, for the sake of argument, it is very important that the leadership should not be a one-man business affair. I agree with you that although we are to respect the elders (leaders) of the church, members should have input into the affairs of the church. After all, shepherds are supposed to tend the flock, know and understand the needs of members. And the elders/leaders of the local church are to submit themselves to the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ—not to another elder.

It was nice of Mark to have responded to your post and share his views. I agree with Mark’s comments regarding the elders being the leaders of the church—quite different from how a typical Southern Baptist Church is structured. For this reason, I’m going to just let Mark speak for himself in regard to his role in the PDC-modeled church where he serves.

KC, I’m so glad that you have found the links dealing with the PDC Movement this website has provided to be useful and helpful to your cause and needs.

Donnie

Donnie you wrote:
I sense that one of the main issues you are bringing to the table is one of leadership. I’ll admit that it will be very difficult to discuss this issue, important as it is. Let me tell you why. In churches of Christ (and you may not know this, but), congregations are autonomous. Each congregation has its own leaders, scripturally defined as “elders” (a.k.a. “bishops” or “shepherds [pastors]” used interchangeably because of the various roles and tasks they’re involved in)—these are the congregation’s leaders. In-depth study of the scriptures will prove the truth about this group of men who are to lead the church or tend the flock. These men [elders] are not to be confused with the one or ones who are the “pulpit” evangelist(s) or preacher(s).

All I can say is you are RIGHT ON! That is exactly the structure our church is trying to move too. (Could your church actually be PDC? hahahaha) I'M KIDDING!!!! :) One minor correction though. Like your church all Baptist churches are autonomous as well ... in other words we do not answer to the Southern Baptist Convention.

KC I'm sorry to hear that you've stumbled into a church that in my view is missing the point. First let me start off by saying that I have not read the "Purpose Driven Church" so I'm not sure I'll be able to address what it teaches or instructs. I will say that I personally do not practice this "take it or leave it" approach. I will also say that I do hear some people say that sometimes and I'm quick to chime in on how I think that is wrong. Yes the church was no doubt given the task to go into the world and make disciples. However making disciples is SO much more than introducing someone to Christ and sending them on their way. There is growth that needs to take place and I see that as another job of the church. I can speak on the "Purpose Driven Life" because I have heard the sermon and read the book. It in fact encourages ALL members to become ministers and be involved in their church so I'm afraid your pastor may have it wrong.

All that said "Church Government" might be an issue you are having a problem with which to me has nothing to do with PDC. Our church is currently going thru this and it's tough. I can only speak for Southern Baptist Churches when I say that a lot of them are not setup correctly according to what I read in Scripture. We've made the church to "Americanized" (my new word) :). We have committees and we vote on everything. I've looked and looked and I can't find this in the New Testament anywhere. Most Baptist churches are lead by the Deacons instead of Elders. To me it's VERY clear that the church is to be ran by the Elders with the pastor being the head elder. The deacons are a separate group and are to "serve" I.E. help widows or singles moms etc. Most Baptist churches you will hear them say, "well the deacons and elders are the same so we just have deacons". I would argue if that were the case why would Paul use to distinct words to describe two distinct groups AND give them two distinct job descriptions.

Hopefully I haven't left the subject too much. :) I guess the point I’m trying to make is that you see a lot of churches trying to get back to the job and structure of the New Testament church. It’s hard to put “tradition” behind us and trust the leaders that God has put in place over us. That being said I do NOT support the notion that, "if you don't like it leave". I can't find that “mind set” in the scripture as well. As an example, when I pray and select the music for Sunday mornings it is geared towards "seekers" BUT I also include songs for "believers". Yes we are to go out and bring in the unsaved BUT we also have a responsibility to the discipleship of our current members. I will be the first to admit it’s been hard for me sometimes. I’ve been a SBC for 40 years and it’s hard to let old “traditions” go sometimes. :)

I hope I made sense KC. :) It's hard to voice everything in a forum like this. I do encourage you not to give up and keep looking for a church home where you can plug in and be involved. PDC or not make sure the church is scripturally led and doing the true task the church was given. I'm sorry that you've had such a bad experience with the church you attended.

Mark

Thanks to both Mark and Donnie for your words. It was nice to be able to "talk" and "listen" with you both. I will let others continue the flow if there is more to say. Mark, if you do read Purpose Driven Church, read it with caution. Our church just adopted every single thing in it without pause. Honestly I felt it became the Bible for our church and Rick Warren the Pope. It was hard to disagree with the strategy as our church grew from 300 to 3000 in the 6 years we attended. But as my husband says "Growth does not mean it is good, cancers grow too". I will sign off but appreciate all your thoughts. KC (I want to re-iterate that I appreciated the tone of the conversation especially. When some of the participants have been sarcastic and hurtful, even calling names it made me hesitant to share but you were both so courteous in your disagreements that it made me want to partake).

I enjoyed the conversation Donnie. Thanks for your brotherly conduct and I hope in return I exhibited the same.

God Bless You my friend,
Mark