OK, I have finally done a book reivew of Tamara Hartzell's e-book In the Name of Purpose: Sacrificing Truth on the Altar of Unity, which can be downloaded here, or, if you want to read it online in html format, you can go to her website here. It is highly recommanded, however, that you first read my book review of this book of hers here before you read the book itself.
Basically, this book by Tamara Hartzell is a critique of the entire purpose driven phenomenon. However, it has certain errors in it which render the book largely unsuitable for apologetic issues and instead it would function more of an informative value for those who are already better informed about the issues at hand.
Anyway, she does write some succint punchlines regarding the coming apostasy which is partly manifested in the purpose driven paradigm which I would like to share with you here.
Itching ears have turned everything upside down.
(p. 15-17 in the PDF format)
I really love this line, especially in light of the undermining of God's truth in certain circles: 'Quoting the world is called teaching, and quoting the Holy Scriptures is called your opinion'. Sadly, this is espoused by some people that I know who call themselves Christian, and Christian leaders at that!
17 comments:
This is exactly what is happening.
I have been slandered more than once when people say that i am having my own opinion/ interpretation of the bible when i hold onto the idea in 1tim2, about the part where women shouldn't hold authority to teach or preach over men.
When will the Christian world wake up? Daniel and brothers/sisters in Christ, i fear the worst may be just begining..
Ermm.. I dont really see the use of such nice sounding punchlines without the accompanying explanation and evidence to back it up (even if some or many of the punchlines are true)...
+ since you did mention that the book has a lot of errors and is not that usuable
Hello Munchy,
I mentioned that the book has quite a few errors, however, this does not mean that the book has way too many errors to be of use. The book is about 400+ pages, so having ~10 errors may sound like a lot, but is actually a minority. Though some of the errors are quite fundamental (i.e. the argumentation errors), they would only be serious if you do not know how to discern them, which is why I recommand people read my review first before reading the book. Some of the points she raise, which I obviously don't have the time and luxury to point out, are well-argued and true. Most of the other points which are not well-argued are true also, but you need to do your own reasoning from the facts and evidences she gives.
As for the punchlines, they are just a summary of the problems within modern-day pseudo-Evangelicalism. The evidences and facts to back them up are many but diffuse. You really need to read up quite a lot more books and articles relating to the condition of the churches to see why these statements are true; one book alone is not going to give you all the evidences you need to prove these statements! What you need to do is read articles on the Purpose-driven paradigm; research on the concepts of transitioning (The book of the same name by Dan Southerland would suffice), research on the church splits that the Purpose-Driven paradigm is creating in 'transitioning' churches, and the methods which the leadership use to kick out the 'resistors'. Also, do your own research on the Third Wave New Apostolic Reformation led by C. Peter Wagner & co. (which Ed Silvoso is a part of) and how they define the authority of apostles over the congregation, read up on how Word-faith Charismatics like Benny Hinn treat their critics (Benny Hinn wished he had a 'Holy Ghost ' machine gun to shoot down all his critics). To top it up, read into the Emerging Church cult and how it is destroying churches from the inside with their cultic ideas of contemplative spirituality, and see who are the pastors who are helping them by embracing these Trojan horses. Once you have read all this, you will have your proofs of all these punchline statements which I have quoted in this post.
Oh, and by the way, first hand experience helps a lot. If you start questioning your church on certain issues from a biblical foundation, let me know if they respond similarly from the Bible or just mention something to the effect that 'I am your pastor, LISTEN to and OBEY me!' 'I eat salt more than you eat rice' etc. My experience with my former church can be placed in that negative category.
>'Assuming your elders are "men after God's own heart" and are faithful men in the ministry, then they have eaten more salt than we have eaten rice. Elders, are sinners, and sometimes take things for granted (don't we all?). They may not have a proof-text for everything - let alone to have it on the spot as well. '
Well,
I think what I was driving at is the attitude of these leaders, i.e. they should be humble instead of proudly declaring themselves to be the above reproach. In fact, I think it is rather easy for certain reformed people who have good pastors and thus live a sheltered life to understand those of us who come from Neo-Evangelical & especially Purpose Driven and/or New Apostolic background who tried to correct the leadership regarding their errors and get those inane type of responses.
If the leadership doesn't know the answer at that point, the godly thing to do would be to tell the member that they would get back to them, go and read up on the topic, especially from the Scriptures, and then DO get back to the member on the topic, NOT to 'put' the member 'in their place' by insulting their intelligence and spiritual maturity, and despise their prophecy (Lording over the flock).
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. [19] Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. [20] Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear (1 Tim. 5:17-20).”
Not every elder labor in the word and doctrine (i.e. teaching elders). Some labour in mammon, some in popularity contests, and others … they don’t labour at all.
There are elders of every kind, like Baskin Robbins. There are good ones, and bad ones, sweet ones and bitter ones. There are those that honor men more than God, and those who honor their own opinions more than the Divine Logos.
Nevertheless, let us “be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5).” If the church’s leadership is apostate or in a very poor spiritual state, it might be time to pray about the Lord’s leading in church membership.
'If you wish to say the Met Tab and Dr. Masters, just say so. If not, please elaborate.'
Well,
I wouldn't say Met Tab, since they are doubtless other good church around. Anyway, yes, Met Tab is one of them and I tuly appreciate Dr. Masters' ministry the last time I was there. It is my impression, however, that many reformed folks due to their good pastors are protected from the wild tempest going on outside and thus find it difficult, if they can, to comprehend the wounded sheep who came out from the apostasizing and compromising churches.
I would share more on my former church experience another time, after I have formally leave her, but suffice is to say that the pastor and the entier session are in rebelliong against God. An elder I talked to defended Roman Catholics as Christians, refused to condemn Roman Catholicism as heresy, refused to proclaim that salvation is by faith alone but avoided the issue when I asked him about it. When pressed on that issue, he basically just throw out all the verses where the words 'salvation' and 'faith' are found (most probably using a concordance). When talking about the gifts of the Spirit, he recommands works by Jack Deere and John White. A Young Adult leader whom I fomerly respected and is supported by the leadership denies salvation by faith alone & insists that works is integral for our salvation. So, Jenson, what would you have done in my circumstance? Should I have obeyed my leaders and imitate them circa Heb. 13:7?
Dear brother Jenson,
I hope u can understand Daniel's position - that he came from a church that utterly rebelled against the Word and totatlly became liberal and fell, hook, line and sinker into the purpose driven mddenss.
I understand that your father-in-law is a retired pastor and you have alot of respect for him and that is why you are saying all this. It is perfectly understandable that you are thus defending the position of elders and pastors to make slight sin.
But let me get a word in - is that let no man show any pride in the face of God's Word. incorrect is incorrect and correct is correct, regardless of age and rank.
For a situation in which an elder/pastor is unsure but uses his authority to overpower the reasoning, as compared to a member who knows, is supported by scripture and is clearminded and convinced thoughly by the Lord, i say that the member has done no wrong - for he is not acting against the Word.
But because the elder acted willfully in his ignorance, he/she is guilty of the sin of jugding unbiblically.
I write this in the context that we all have the Holy Spirit and we all can use the Word to rebuke and equip and correct for all righteous work. The Holy spirit is the same in all of us: no pastor or elder has 'more'.
Hello all,
Hope you don’t mind me commenting here.
I think there is a sense in which teachers and pastors have a ‘duty’ to justify what they teach from the bible. If the Bereans were considered noble for searching the scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul was telling them was true, surely the same must apply to anyone sitting under a teacher, no matter how good, today. I would humbly, (though I am open to correction) say that a pastor ought never to say on any religious matter that ‘this is so just because I say so’, or that the answer is very ‘obvious’. I think a pastor does owe his hearers the bible proof of everything he says. Off course he will not be able to answer every conceivable question off hand, but I do think he should go back, check his references and get back to the member if it is a sincere question.
dear wenxian
my life application bible commentary states that "In Paul's reference to women remaining quiet, the word quiet expresses an attitude of serenity and composure (and not silence)." And that this verse was probably refering to new women converts from Ephesus who were misusing their newly acquired freedom, and they had not had the maturity and knowledge of others.
It also says that Paul did not ever forbid women from teaching, in Acts 18:24-26 Priscilla instructs him. He frequently mentioned women who held positions of responsibility in church. And in 1 Cor 11:5 he acknowledges women publicly praying and prophesying
On a personal note, I would strongly encourage you to stop holding on to that particular interpretation.
Dear Jenson,
NUS CCC is currently fine, thanks you. Due to my 'influence', we DO not treat RCs as Christians. In fact, I am currently leading a RC in an evangelistic bible study (on the book of Romans) in the hope that he would turn to Christ. Although I am not say THAT influential, no one has tried to bring in any rank heresy outright while I am here. And the leaders in NUS CCC are unlike your leaders in OCF or CU, they are all Evangelicals; no RCs nor Orthodox here, and charismatic influence is not running rampant and Word-faith teaching is condemned. Other expressions are just plain ignored and if they enter, are strongly prohibited from teaching their particular brand (be it prosperity, salvation only by second HS baptism etc.). In fact, extreme Charismatics tend to avoid us and instead have their own church groups in schools (i.e. CHC). Anyway, this is my last year in NUS so it is not an issue for me.
To Munchy:
I agree with Wenxian re the issue on women preaching. In fact, our possition is the historic orthodox position of the Christian church for the last 1900 years. Only after the New Evangelical movement came about that we start to have women preachers. Notice that I say women preachers, not women who may be influential and informally guide and teach others, one of which is Tamara Hartzell who write this book that I have reviewed. (Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea is another such example. Biblically, Priscilla is such an example.) For more information on this issue, may I suggest you read Vincent's post on the topic here: http://vivavoxdei.blogspot.com/2006/08/effete-ecclesiasticism-brief-note-on.html .
Oh, and please do take your discussion on women preachers elsewhere, thank you. I have way too many current issues on my blog at the moment. And as we all know, this topic has nothing to do with women preachers.
Anyway, Wenxian, ignore Munchy's honest but misguided advice. And don't slam him for giving you advice on something he honestly believes is true. Any personal attacks will be summarily deleted.
Munchy
I take issue with the wrong interpretation given in your “Life Application Bible.”
At the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, there are many online books, articles, sermons and even journal articles for your in-depth study of this issue.
http://www.cbmw.org/resources/
But do study before telling others what to believe.
Brother Daniel and Jensen,
CCC’s compromise with Catholics is a known fact. In Ireland and parts of UK, CCC is completely taken over by RCs.
As early as 1969, Bill Bright said, “We do not attack the Roman Church. We believe God is doing a mighty work in it and will no doubt use millions of Roman Catholics to help evangelize the world (The Post & Times Star, Cincinnati, Ohio, Aug. 30, 1969).”
For example, see:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/campuscrusade-bridges.html
http://www.cephasministry.com/bill_bright_and_campus_crusade_for_christ.html
http://withchrist.org/CCC.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/billbrightjoins.htm
Daniel, I have spoken to you one on one with regard to your participation in CCC, and I had expected someone to question your involvement.
To put it on record, I believe in separation from preachers of false gospels, and that includes the Romish churches. To some, separation from CCC is considered secondary separation, and therefore disputable. But do expect your standing and convictions to be questioned when you do the Lord’s work under the umbrage of a questionable organization. Personally, I will avoid CCC like a canker. When I left CCC, my wife and I spent more than a year teaching some from the leadership about their compromise with MANY questionable groups, but to no avail.
But ultimately, brother, the Word binds your conscience, and you answer to the Lord only in this matter (as you are not yet a member of CERC). Let us abstain from all appearance of evil, and if I may add, compromise. I know you are doing good, but let not your good be ill spoken off.
Brother, I say this because it must be said, and I do not want anyone thinking that working with CCC is “alright.” Working with a compromising institution dirties our linen. I believe all of us must consider our reputation before man, and before the Lord whenever we consider a course of action - Reputation for the Lord’s sake, and for the sake of His work in His kingdom, and not for our personal glory.
No, I do not think working with compromising institutes are alright. However, I am practical enough to weigh the cost and since it is only 1 year, I will pay it in order to bring people to Christ. But I have already made it clear to my staff that there is no point is talking to me about joining Crusade due to their compromise.
Anyway, since the comments section for this post has drifted way off, I will close the comments section of this post.
Post a Comment