Redefining Love

Great post–and stated very well. One of the most frustrating obstacles I have been experiencing lately in talking to non-Christian friends is the image that has been passed to them from people who are “Christians”. They have been turned off by those who express that their specific church or ‘religion’ is the only way and everything else is strongly criticized. They get caught up in the methodology and not the theology. The response from my friends has been “you Christians can’t even get along”…that is sad. Christian love, as defined in the Bible, which we all profess to believe in, should be the guide in all we do.

It is interesting that you do not offer up any of your pastor’s actions in talking about love. Can you tell me how the following demonstrates love that you are talking about:

http://www.perrynoble.com/2007/07/11/buttpaste-is-the-solution-to-church-growth/

How loving is this post?

Or is it loving to say you would like to punch someone in the throat? Of course, your pastor uses that phrase because he copies most of what Mark Driscoll does.

Is it loving for your pastor to say in his sermon on Hell that a church member is going to email him and complain about the music then they should get saved as well?

Love is not prideful, true enough. But your pastor just oozes arrogance. Takes pride in being edgy. Well, edgy in a copy Mark Driscoll sort of way.

I would challenge you to take your same analysis above and apply it to your pastor. Do that and then you will have more credibility with those you are attempting to label as unloving.

Just wanted to add another thing on this topic about love among fellow christians. Do you think it was unloving of Paul to chastise Peter in front of a crowd that may have contained unbelievers?

No, it is not my intent to cry, “they do it too” But to show you that you are very biased in your assessments. Especially after your previous post where you call out the folks at Slice. I am saying that your point would be better received if you called out people on both sides. You can find equal parts of vitroil and unloving behavior coming from all parties. But yet you represent the commenters at the Old Truth website of being the only ones guilty of unloving behavior. But yet, you fail to mention the unloving behavior coming from your side who are quick to call people legalists, pharisees, and a variety of unloving names. I am just merely suggesting that if you are going to call Christians out for being unloving to one another then show where it is coming from both sides. Otherwise you come across as being insincere about your desire to treat another with love. You look the other way when your pastor does it but you are quick to point it out when others do it. Seems like your motivation is driven by the desire to see more loving attitudes among Christian but it seems that your desire is to redefine love.

Check out a similiar conversation here:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/08/response-to-david-aikman.html#links

As far as Peter and Paul are concerned, you didnt address what the other non-believers might have thought. That seems to be a large premise of your post but yet you fail to address it. Believers are to hold each other accountable in a loving way BUT that can be seen as unloving by unbelievers because of the warped perception of love that the fallen world has.

AND, how many blogs were rejoicing when someone was dishonest and posted under a phony name at Slice and then proclaimed that Slice was punk’ed! Was this loving behavior? To lie on Slice and then rejoice?

If you expect to achieve your stated result of Christians treating one another more lovingly then call out ALL that do so. Otherwise, you are the one who is ultimately being unloving by misrepresenting the truth

Hey Nathan; The comment in your post “Let’s stop pretending that we’re dealing with churches here. This is not a church and there is no reason to think that this man is a Christian. He’s one of Satan’s ministers disguised … as a servant of light.”

That was my comment. I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t truncate my quotations. I said he’s one of Satan’s ministers disguised (and not very well) as an angel of light. That comes from 2 Cor 11:14. You can use my name if you want. I’m not ashamed of it. In fact, you may want to copy all of my comments and let people see what I said in entirety. I meant what I said. The fact of the matter is that in the post I commented we saw a so-called minister of the gospel attract people with sin instead of the gospel.

The fact of the matter is that love is key, but not at the expence of biblical truth. Check your bible and you’ll see that truth always precedes love and when truth has been distorted or ruined it’s the job of the Christian to expose the error. In point of fact the bible says that we are to speak the truth in love. (Eph 4:15). Those who refuse the truth are said to be lost 2 (Thess 2:10). It also says that we are to stand string for the truth(2 Thess 2:13). And in Eph 5:11 we are to expose the works of darkness and have nothing to do with them.

It also seems strange to me that you sit at your computer and criticise other blogs for criticising false teaching and say that we are the unloving ones. You criticise just as much as we do, you seem to fail your own definition of love.

One more thing, I also said that those 110 people that supposedly came to to know Jesus at the church service where the AC/DC song was played, really met the devil. And you can quote me on that. The Lord Jesus was hid fromn their eyes and they were lured to make a decision for a false representation of Christ.

I think, as i stated before, that there is over the top vitroil on both sides. Like this posted on Old Truth by Rob:

“Tsk, Tsk. I believe every one in league with this site is going to Hell. Try quoting the Bible for a change instead of dead authors, and repent. We’d love to see you in Heaven.”

Again, it is interesting that you didnt reference this post as well as an example of unloving behavior among Christians. Your agenda is showing.

You are right I was not at Newspring. But i did watch their vodcast. He DID say that if you have a problem with the music save your emails and then implied about the condition of their salvation. I can see that you will dismiss anything unloving that Perry says as a joke. Much like your very loving post on the purpose driven church.

On the Butt Paste post. So, if we are joking and ridiculing other Christians it is OK to be unloving? Is this another attempt by you to redefine love?

Again, what do you think that any unbelievers thought when they saw Paul rebuke Peter? Do you think that they thought it was loving?

And should we redefine love to the worldly standard and understanding of love? Biblical love and worldly love are not the same. How do you think the world views it when church discipline is lovingly practiced and a person is kicked out of the church? The world woudl see that as unloving behavior among christians.

The concept is quite elementary.
Love for others puts them first..not yourself. not their feelings, not your emotions, but their overall well being.

I’ve seen children playing with electrical sockets, i’ve worked with electricity a lot, i know the laws of electricity, the child does not…should i say…well they are having fun, look at all their friends who want to come over and play with the elec. outlet, i should just keep quite, because i love them, i don’t want to offend them. If they don’t agree with me that it could injure or kill them, that’s fine. i won’t push my beliefs on them, i don’t want them to think i am more educated than they are regarding elec. Then at their funerals i can tell their parents how much i loved them…..That’s Insane!!!

How much more insane to ignore doctrines and actions with eternal consequences. Do i keep quite?

Black is black, white is white,
There is truth, there is error,
There is only one way!

Your first comment from Randy says “….They have been turned off by those who express that their specific church or ‘religion’ is the only way and everything else is strongly criticized….”

If i have a muslim friend, do i smile and support their beliefs and actions?

Loving others means hurting their feelings sometimes, it may cause them embarrassment and shame, rightly so. If i am flirting with something dangerous, or have an incorrect view of eternal matters, and someone who knows better keeps quite, for fear of hurting my feelings, or for fear of hurting our friendship, and i find out they kept quite, i’ll punch them in the throat.

Nathan, a little FYI for you. When quoting someone you should always cite your source and the person who made the statement, and when possible provide the link to the source. That way your readers can verify the statement and check the context it was said in. In fact, you really should provide the link to the comment string in which my statements were made. Many of your readers may conclude that my statement was accurate and warranted, but if you don’t there’s no way for them to know for sure.

If someone says something on a publicly accessable blog or if it’s been published then it’s fair game and the author shoud have no problems with other poeple referencing his writing. If he didn’t want any one reading it then he shouldn’t have posted it. So you should never feel as though you’re doing something wrong by citing the source of your quotation. It’s in point of fact your duty to do so.

There are people out there with less than scrupulous intentions who will not provide the source of a quotation because they want to twist what someone has said and when the source is not provided there is no way that the truth of what was said cab be known, and a lot of damage to the author’s name can be done if people believe the lie and perpetuate it. I don’t think you’re trying to be unscrupulous, but just as a bit of admonishion to you, always provide your source, it protects both you and the person you’re quoting.

Just a quick response to Teddy—my comment referenced back to Christians and Christian love—I wholeheartedly agree with sharing Christian faith and beliefs. However, the comment was directed to those who consider themselves Christian yet abandon theology (including loving others) in favor of specific methods or denominations of Christianity. (e.g. type of clothes, contemporary vs. traditional, types of worship, etc.). My friends have been verbally attacked by “Christians” telling them their way is the only way. While we as Christians criticize HOW we “do church”, many of the unsaved are watching and wondering “where’s the love they talk about?”.

I guess my only problem with your love synopsis is that you leave out an equally important verse in your 1 Corinthians 13 list. You listed the ones convenient for your argument but have accidentally omitted the one that also deflates it and that’s verse six which reads: (Love/Chrarity) “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.”

So, on both sides, if the party you are referring to is “rejoicing in or taking pleasure in” the sins they claim you’re committing (or at least the falsity of your point of you). However, it is also true that love does not take pleasure in committing sin either nor in continuing in an attitude independent of scriptural context.

Nowhere in scripture is love an island unto itself. Sitting right along side it is also justice which God upholds with equal measure. Love is somethng we hear a lot about today, and in a world devoid of love, we rightfully should, however, we also live in a very rebellious world; a sinful world; a world that shakes its fist at God and almost dares Him to udge them. And from this point of view, because His love is pure and holy, He has to judge and condemn sin. That is His justice.

1 Corinthians is perfect love, and it describes the only One who has the capcity to love to so great a measure, and that’s Jesus Christ. None of us can love like He loves.

However, the one doesn’t exclude the other. Just because someone sees a ministry operating outside the Word of God and confronts them, or even warns others about it does not mean they are “unloving” unless their attitude in doing so exhibits a lack of love. Mockery is not love, nor is condemnation for condemnation’s sake.

However, even the Apostle Paul consistently warned of false teaching and apostacies. 1st and 2nd Timothy are full of warnings to guard the sheep against false teachings.

And we shouldn’t hate such a thing besides. It keeps the Gospel message from losing it’s effectiveness. If we exempt certain passages, for instance simply because we’re afriad they’ll offend people, well then we’ve eliminated God’s Words. And which one of us has a right to do that? I know that I don’t.

So, we have to be careful to include the full counsel of God. Praise God for those who are keeping it. In a world where conflicting voices are coming from all over the place, the Word of God is the only anchor that will keep us in this wicked age.

In Him with you,

Tom

Nathan,

I’ve noticed that you seem to take up the purpose driven, emergent side of the discussion, and citing such things as ‘ministries that are experiencing tremendous growth and inexplicable salvation numbers’, while making fun of those who insist on doctrinal purtiy. I would just like to say this discussion is already over, and the results are in. All we need to do is look at the ministries and values of Charles Finney vs. those of Asahel Nettleton in the early 19th century to see where this is leading. Finney almost word for word had the same attitude as you, while those of us who disagree with the emergent side would represent Nettleton’s view. And Finney had tremendous success, great numbers and salvations galore. And like you, he scorned criticism of his ‘new methods’ because those who disagreed with him didn’t have the same numbers he had. But, history shows that the fruit of what Finney supposedly did didn’t remain, and in fact did much more harm than good in the long run (read about the ‘burned over’ district). Nettleton on the other hand stayed true to the gospel, would not fall prey to new, unbiblical methods, and his preaching produced much more lasting fruit. As I said before, history shows us where all this ‘new light’ will lead, and it’s not a pretty picture. Please take some time to read about Nettleton and Finney, and consider the path that you’re on.

Great post, Nathan. Pharisee-ism is alive and well! People are still taking methods, styles and preferences and turning them into religious law. Building fences of division where Jesus never intended them. Why don’t we just go ahead and make circumcision a requirement for church membership? While we’re at it, let’s bring back head coverings and prohibition! Maybe station a couple deacons at the door with measuring tape to make sure the men’s hair isn’t too long and the women’s skirts aren’t too short.

The church is full of armchair quarterbacks, and that will never change. Your post was careful to not call people out by name, and you were criticized for it. Oh well. Maybe next time you should act like a jackass and they will approve.

Ben, what is the definition of Pharisee? Do you have any idea, your gleeful ignorance regarding the term is painful. What were the beliefs of the Pharisee’s? Do you have any idea? From your comment, you do not, please do some genuine study of scripture next time to avoid looking so foolish.

The Pharisees had taken Jewish law and mis-interpreted or added to it in a way that gave them religious superiority over others. They began to replace fear of God with man-made piety. The result was that they failed to see Jesus as the Messiah and therefore recognize that He was the fulfillment of the old covenant. They knew the rules, but missed the point. This put them in the unenviable position of becoming enemies of the gospel and in opposition to the cause of Christ.

Certainly they were well intentioned. Even Paul believed he was preserving his noble way of life by persecuting Christians. It wasn’t until Paul encountered Jesus, and the subsequent grace and forgiveness he received that He recognized his former zealous persecution as sin.

Teddy, while you guys are wasting time throwing stones from glass houses, Jesus is on the move. He is awakening his Bride in America who for years has been shrinking. If you guys aren’t careful, you’ll miss this great moment in church history because your view of how church should be done is so myopic you can’t recognize what’s happening. Like the Pharisees, you have missed the point.

If you detected a hard edge to my previous post, you are right. My father was a pastor as was my wife’s father. I grew up seeing how hurtful “armchair quarterbacks” can be. These pastors have made sacrifices that most church-goers have no concept of. I can’t count how many times my Dad would come home after a long day of counseling marriages in trouble, fixing toilets, hospital visits, sermon preparation, and the like only to get a voice mail from some guy criticizing him because he didn’t do communion the way he liked or dressed too casual (or formal) on Sunday.

I wonder… would you guys be so vitriolic if you were sitting at one of these pastor’s dinner tables, in their home with their family? Would you be more civil when you recognized that these men were more than figures on a internet video? When you saw their heart and passion for the gospel of Christ, would you change your tactics?

Ben,

You are totally missing the point. Us ‘armchair quarterbacks’ take issue exactly with the what they’ve done with the gospel of Christ. When the emergent movement changes it, redefines it, or just outright denies it, that’s what we have a problem with. It’s the truth of scripture that’s at issue here. And no one who, as you say, has a ‘heart and passion’ for the gospel of Christ would then decide to change it and modify it in an effort to make it more ‘consumer friendly’ for those whom the bible calls the children of the devil. On this point I stand with ‘Pharasie’ Paul who said that if anyone preach any other gospel than that which they had received, let that man be accursed.

I have a problem with a lot on the emergent movement. There are a lot of guys in that group that deny the authority of scripture, exclusivity of Christ, etc. I’m not talking about them.

What about a pastor like Mark Driscoll that has a very clear and reformed theology? His methods are similar in some ways, but his theology is far different. There are a lot of pastors out there in the same boat. They are not changing the message of the gospel, but rather changing the methods by which it is presented.

I’ve only watched a few of Perry Noble’s sermons, but from what I saw he is anything but Christianity Lite. He doesn’t seem afraid to preach repentance, conformity to Christ, hell, etc.

You seem to have problems not with their theology, but with their methods. I wonder if you are not making the mistake of throwing anyone with a postmodern worship style into the same bucket as Mclaren, Paget, et al.

Am I right or have I misunderstood? Is your problem one of doctrine or is it with postmodern methodology? Or have you expanded your definition of the gospel to include not only content, but delivery style as well?

Good questions, Ben. I can’t speak for everyone on ‘my side’, but for me is totally about doctrine. You asked if we are ‘throwing anyone with a postmodern worship style into the same bucket as McLaren, Paget, etc.’ Not me. If you’re talking specifically about the use of drums, electric guitars, Jeff Deyo’s music instead of Wesley’s, then I’m OK with it, I actually prefer it. (I don’t even know any hymms). And I’d much rather hear a biblically sound message from a guy in shorts and a ripped t-shirt smoking a cigarette than a watered-down, man-pleasing, purpose-driven message from a Baptist in a smart 3-piece suit.

To me, here’s how this discussion seems to go:
Anti-Emergent (like me): Rick Warren’s teaching is wrong, it’s not biblical, and I believe people shouldn’t been drawn in by this false teacher.
Pro-Emergent: Those Pharasies just want to criticize us because we’re growing, and they want to tell us that we have to dress like them. Don’t they know that God called us to just love one another.

You can find an example of that at the very top of this page. Notice Nathan’s attitude is that it’s wrong and unloving to criticize, and most Christians should be embarrassed by others trying to expose error.

The question shouldn’t be is it right to call attention to the errors of public teachers (uh, it is), the question should always be this: is what’s being said about them correct or not. For example, a simple one might go like this:

Rick Warren uses many different bible translations and not so great paraphrases in order to make scripture say what he wants it to say, even though many times the actual text comes no where near his meaning. This is at best misleading and dangerous and at worst heresy.

The response to what I just said shouldn’t be is it loving or not for me to say that, the response should be is it true. But, as I have seen in most of these discussions, the response is to call us unloving pharasies. And why is that usually the response. Simple – because what I said about Rick Warren is true.

I think some of does come down to methodology. But that is closely tied to one’s theology and how you answer some basic questions:

1. What is the purpose of the church?
2. What is the purpose of the church’s weekly services?
3. Who should the services designed for?
4. What is worship?
5. Should everything we do in church be designed to worship God?

It is more than just the methodology being practiced, it is the reasoning behing these methodologies that are being discussed.

Ben, let me ask you the following questions about your church in relation to what Newspring is doing:

1. Would you open up your church service with the Praise band singing “Friends in low places”? Additionally, if we are to come to together corporately to worship the Almighty God, how does this acheive this?
2. Would you have your Praise Band play AC/DC’s Hell’s Bells? Granted they did not sing the lyrics but still keeping in mind that we should be worshipping God, how does this help achieve this end? Does this glorify God?
3. Would you plagiarize large portions of your sermons?
4. Do you think that getting someone to say the prayer after a manipulative sermon guarantees their salvation? Newspring claims close to 400 decisions in 2 weeks. Do you honestly believe that each one of those decisions are geniune? As a previous poster stated, just look at Charles Finney for a little history of that matter.

Yes, for me at least, i do question methodology. But I do so because of the reasons that certain methodologies are being employed. Drawing a crowd is not a definitive sign of God’s blessing on a church. Look how fast Mormonism and Islam is growing for proof on that matter. Spurgeon’s quote always comes to mind “feeding the sheep or amusing the goats”. Pragmatism rules the day in many churches today. The end justifies the means.

As far as what is being taught. Just because Perry talks about Hell, for example, doesnt mean that he does so accurately. A half truth is a whole lie.

Another question for you Ben, does the Gospel of Jesus Christ need gimmicks in order for people to receive it? Does an Almighty God need Perry to come to the stage in a casket? Does an Almighty God need the praise band to play Hells Bells and have fire shooting up from the stage? Ben, do you believe that it is your responsibility to save people?

I agree that methods do and can change to reach the lost. But I take exception to these methods that are wordly and the church in its attempt to be relevant becomes irrelevant. Churches like Saddleback and Willowcreek helped usher in the age of seeker sensitive churches but now we are seeing the fruit of those movements/fads. Young people raised in these easy believism environments are now leaving the faith.

In conclusion, I do have problems with some of the methodology being employed today. Not because of me holding onto traditions in which I was raised but because I feel that many of these methodologies are not biblically grounded and only designed to draw in a crowd. I also fear that many of these churches are producing false converts who believe that they are saved based on a very limited and false understanding of salvation. These are exactly the kinds of “converts” that Satan wants. Those that believe that they are saved but arent. To echo a previous poster, Charles Finney would be so proud

Nathan,

Let’s look at two questions here:
(1) Am I being unloving in my criticisms of Rick Warren?
(2) Is what Rick Warren is teaching false?

Now, in answer to the first question, I would say, “Maybe I am, I don’t know”. ‘Unloving’ seems to be a subjective thing, and hard to discern, especially if you don’t know the person. Was Paul unloving for publically calling out Peter? Was Stephen unloving when he said the Pharasies were, ‘stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears’? Or how would you respond to these examples of how one writer describes the actions of his fellow Christian brothers:

* ‘obsessive behavior’
* ‘vitriolic attacks’
* ‘Most Christians would be embarrassed by thier behavior’
* ‘pompous behavior’
* ‘tabloid nature of these blogs’
* ‘unloving behavior’

Nathan, can’t you see how someone could look at your post with the exact same eye as you look at others and say that it’s very unloving? Why, because you’re wrong. No, it’s because this is subjective. If you don’t agree with what people are saying, it’s easy to label them as unloving. But if you agree with them, you’re much less likely to be able to call them unloving. (Which was shown by earlier posts and your responses to them).
Do I think that you’re unloving? No, I’ve never met you. I could read everything on your site and not know if you are or not. But, what I can do is read everything on your site and know if you’re right or wrong biblically with what you teach and say. That’s not subjective, that’s objective, because we have the bible as the final authority.
So what’s this all mean? Stop writing about the attitudes and motives of those who criticize, for example, Rick Warren; and start writing about whether they are CORRECT in their criticisms from a biblical standpoint. But you probably won’t do that – Why? Because it’s impossible to believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and defend Rick Warren’s teaching at the same time. (Sorry if my tone seems unloving)

Nathan,

It seems to me that you continue to intentionally miss the point. Let’s say we’re both right – let’s say critics of Rick Warren are being unloving by criticising him, and that what he teaches is gross error and he is misleading millions of people and quite possibly giving many false assurance of salvation and leading them into hell. If both of these things are true, which one of them should we be most concerned with at the moment? I would say that should be obvious. I would also say that people potentially being unloving in their criticism of him should be a drop in the ocean compared to his false teaching. But what do you focus on? The way people go about alerting others to this deception rather than the deception itself. It’s kind of like having someone try to save someone’s life by pulling them out of a burning building, and you, sitting there watching, commenting on how they tore the guy’s sleeve when they pulled him out. C’mon, Nathan, stop telling us how unloving we’re being and tackle the issue biblically – Are those who unlovingly say Rick Warren is a false teacher correct or aren’t they?

Sam,

1. Would you open up your church service with the Praise band singing “Friends in low places”? Additionally, if we are to come to together corporately to worship the Almighty God, how does this acheive this?

Probably not, but I’m not above it. (pun intended) I recognize that as a matter of preference and not one of sin.

2. Would you have your Praise Band play AC/DC’s Hell’s Bells? Granted they did not sing the lyrics but still keeping in mind that we should be worshipping God, how does this help achieve this end? Does this glorify God?

Same answer as above. I have a friend who was a famous guitarist in the 60′s and 70′s. Played with Bonnie Rait and others. He is devoted Christian and worship leader. He plays weekly in bars playing his old tunes. These aren’t Christian songs. People come from miles away to hear him. Every time he plays, he finds a way to bring it all back to Jesus and a time of worship. In a bar. People get saved and he is more evangelisitcally connected than anyone I know. If the church is not a building, but people why can this not happen in a church?

3. Would you plagiarize large portions of your sermons?

Hmmm… I steal from other preachers all the time. I always reference them, but I don’t do it because I think scripture requires it (unless the material is copyrighted). I do it because I want people to know about good resources. I’d be flattered if someone “plagiarized” something I said.

4. Do you think that getting someone to say the prayer after a manipulative sermon guarantees their salvation? Newspring claims close to 400 decisions in 2 weeks. Do you honestly believe that each one of those decisions are geniune?

Well, I can’t really answer your question without saying that I think Newspring sermons are manipulative. I don’t know. If I had to guess, I’d say they probably aren’t but I don’t really know. Certainly not all 400 of those conversions are real. I’m sure Newspring knows it too. The problem is that there is no way to know in the short term if anyone is saved whether they answered an altar call or prayed with someone in their living room. All we can do is provide opportunities for people to hear the gospel and respond. I give an altar call every week. I always say that there’s nothing magical about walking up an isle that gets a person saved. It’s a response to the regeneration that has already happened in your heart. “Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.” The altar call is the “confess with your mouth” part. Sure that can happen anywhere, but why miss an opportunity?

does the Gospel of Jesus Christ need gimmicks in order for people to receive it?

Obviously not. 20 or 30 years ago you could have called a pipe organ a gimmick. You could have called a choir a gimmick. In some areas, air conditioning would be a gimmick. Preachers that raise their voices could be a gimmick. If people come in my church and stumble over something, I want it to be the gospel not me or my lack of hospitality and inability to understand where they are coming from.

Nathan,

Yes, I will feel free to correct you. I DON’T CARE if you mischaractorize me, I don’t care if you think I’m off my rocker. I want you to address the issue. Is what Rick Warren teaches correct biblically, or isn’t it? It seems to me in all your posts you almost intentionally will bring up anything at all EXCEPT talking about whether someone’s teaching is true. You asked if I believe that the dangers or Warren, etc. are so strong that the manner in which we address them are unimportant. Well, according to the way you’ve responded, we’ll never know. We won’t know if the dangers are so strong because you refuse to even acknowledge if there are dangers, could be dangers, or even if danger is a real word. Once again, are the critics of Rick Warren correct in their criticism, or are the wrong in their criticism.

Here’s how my question is relevant to the ‘issue of love’ as you say. Your premise in this post is that critics of Warren and others are being unloving. This you say bothers you. But what you don’t realize is that this whole thing is false. You would like us to believe that you are concerned that critics of well-known ministries are being unloving, but what you are really showing is that you don’t like people criticizing people who you agree with.

If you were able to say, “Rick Warren is engaged in very dangerous false teaching, which I can not agree with, but, nevertheless, I believe some of the criticisms of him are unloving.”; if you were able to say that then your post may have some credibility. But as it is, and as was shown from earlier posts, you are quick to call those who criticize your favorites unloving, while failing to see or call out the same unloving attitude from ‘your own guys’. This shows that you care much less about an overall unloving attitude in the blogosphere, and much more about making sure that no one criticizes your emergent-type people.

Read your own original post. If it were truly about the overall unloving attitude out there, it might contain examples from the people at Old Truth and Slice, and it might also contain some examples of how ruthless the emergent movement has been for years criticizing anything remotely traditional, and denegrating anyone who’s unwilling to jump on the purpose bandwagon. (Mark my words, very soon we’re going to be called ‘purpose-deniers’)

To sum this all up, here’s what I truly believe that you believe (in your mind) this post is about:

“I need to speak out against Christians being unloving in their criticisms of other Christians”

And here’s what you’ve shown this post is really about:

“I don’t like the guys I respect getting picked on”

Think about it. It’s obvious from your omission in the initial post of any unloving attitudes from the emergent side. It’s obvious from your willingness to excuse Noble’s behavior, and it’s obvious in your unwillingness to even admit your bias towards Warren, because you know that that would then make your criticisms of those who criticize him seem a little hollow. That’s why it’s relevent.

Andy, “are the critics of Rick Warren correct in their criticism, or are the wrong in their criticism.”

Nathan refuses to answer that question. Why?

Remember, discernment is a God given gift, it’s not natural, because man hates the truth, and loves darkness. Any discernment you have is a direct gift from God, we can never, and should never expect to argue discernment into someone, rather we pray and pray and pray for God to shower them through grace with sweet discernment.

Sometimes i wish i could look at the teachings of false teachers and just smile and agree, that’s easy, discernment, like many gifts is very uncomfortable, it breaks your heart to see the masses flock to falsehoods, to one that cannot or chooses not to discern truth from error, they have it easy, yet the matters they toy with have eternal consequences, so easy..but eternally deadly.

“…are you agreeing or disagreeing that the behavior of these sites (the ones that criticize in an unloving way) is wrong?”

I cannot judge whether someone is being unloving, furthermore, i am commanded not to by my Lord, Matt. 7:1 teaches we are not to judge people’s motivations for doing things, (it does NOT teach not to judge people’s actions). The Scribes/Pharisees just knew they had it right, and what were John the Baptist word’s to them, “Brood of Vipers” eww, He sure was unloving, that mean ol John the Baptist, that sure was unloving.

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?” Matt 23:33 Who was that unloving person?…what…IT WAS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR. He IS love.

For Christ and John to be fluffy and tell them their beliefs were fine would have been hateful, not loving. If a child is about to grab a hot iron, i don’t just smile and say, ahh, whatever he wants to do is fine, no i scream…THAT”S HOT…IT WILL BURN YOU…STAY AWAY!! Otherwise i hate that child.

If you understand nothing else, understand this:

TO TEACH RIGHT FROM WRONG, TO CALL SIN: SIN – IS LOVING!!

TO IGNORE TRUTH AND FLIRT WITH SIN AND NOT DISCERN IS HATEFUL!!

Are some unloving when they do this, of coarse, you’d be insane to think otherwise, , but the end goal of **most** is truth, because of love, love requires us to point out error.

Love!

hi i enjoyed the read

Coming in on the tail end of this conversation….
I attended Mr. Nobles church for about three or four years. Not really intending to pimp my blog, but what I have to say may be of interest to some of those in this conversation. The following post journals my journey into and out of NewSpring church. It is rather long, about 12 pages.
http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/an-ecclesiastical-journey/

The following reflects some of my thinking on evangelical methodology, much of it inspired my experience at NewSpring.

http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/some-i-hope-not-too-pedantic-thoughts-on-evangelism/