relational « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Comparison: Rick Warren vs. Truth... Is Purpose Driven Church Deceptive?

truthinator — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:16:26 +0000

Deception Driven Church? You decide…

Stuart L. Brogden compiled this comparison between what Relevant Rick teaches in Purpose Driven Church and what the Bible teaches.

All the work of all men contains error. That I perceive error in Rick Warren’s work is not note worthy. But the repeated patterns of false teaching over 20 or more years and 25 million or so books combine for something to take notice of. This book proclaims an Armenian, man-centered view of the world and its Creator, claiming all the while to be a Biblically sound God-centered work. I think it is actually Biblically bankrupt, gilded with the false gospel of pragmatism. As subtle and dangerous as the serpent in the garden, Warren calls us to believe a lie.

Curious – Many people have criticized Rick Warren by calling him a disciple or associate of Robert Schuller. Warren has denied in this in myriad letters and articles, wanting to put distance between himself and the father of “possibility thinking”. So why does Warren include Schuller’s effusive endorsement of this book (on the third page of the endorsements in the front of the book)? And why does so much of Warren’s instruction sound so much like Schuller (see quotes at the end of this review)?

“The Purpose Driven Church” (PDC) is a humanistic, psychological view of how to handle a church, sprinkled with scripture in whichever translation or version can most easily be used to allegedly support Warren’s claims. Whereas “The Purpose Driven Life” started out with a truth and spent itself in contradiction, so does PDC – claiming rightfully (page 14) “Only God makes the church grow” – and spending nearly 400 pages telling man how to manipulate people into something that only looks like church growth.

The foreward is a sugary sweet, sappy tribute from a once credible W.A. Criswell. In his opening statement, Criswell declares that “God could not have a given me a more beloved and effective ‘son in the ministry’ than Rick Warren.” You know a man is wrong when he limits God or assigns human characteristics to Him. Criswell claims Saddleback “has grown without compromising the mission or the doctrine of a New Testament church.” (Italics in the original.) We shall see. Criswell parrots the Schuller/Warren principal – “If churches are to be successful in evangelizing our society, which is becoming more pagan by the day, they must learn to think like an unbeliever.” (Sic) Right there, Criswell shows that he has lost sight of the New Testament church.

In what appears to be the introduction, Warren tells us the church must “look for the spiritual waves” of church growth, saying “because our churches haven’t been taught the needed skills, we are missing the spiritual waves that could bring revival, health, and explosive growth to our churches.” Evidently, Warren’s Bible is not adequate instruction to the church or its members on the topic of spiritual outreach and discipleship. He shows us right off that he is focused on “growth”. And in this introduction, as well as throughout the book, Warren pays lip service to God while heralding and teaching humanistic methods.

It appears, even in the introduction, that Warren has slipped into an Armenian worldview, saying churches need to ask, “What barriers are blocking the waves God wants to send our way?” (pages 15 & 16) Poor, God Almighty – needs the church to move barriers out of the way. Warren tells us (page 17) “the key issue for churches in the twenty-first century will be church health, not church growth.” He then goes on to tell us, same page, that he’s “been a student of growing churches” for over twenty years.

On page 18, Warren rightly lauds the Bible, and then declares, “My greatest source of learning, however has been watching what God has done in the church I pastor.” This pragmatic view – study men and how to motivate them – pervades this whole book, and everything of Warren that I’ve read.

In Part One, page 26 & 27, Warren reciprocates Criswell’s sappy sweet foreword, quoting a Criswell prayer/prophecy of church growth for Warren, convinced that God had called him to pastor a church – sounding much like a mutual admiration society. Warren admonishes us (page 27) to not “copy things we did without considering the context”, but to look at the “transferable principles”. We will see what these “transferable principles” are shortly.

Still on page 27, Warren states, “Very little of Saddleback’s ministry was preplanned.” Remember this claim. He then devotes the balance of chapter 1 describing all the planning that went into the “planting” of Saddleback. His research led Warren to conclude that the pastor is the key figure in the health and growth of the church, describing the pastor as the “daddy” of the church! Any church that has this view of its pastor has already failed.

In spite of telling us that only God grows the church, Warren’s research drew him to the fastest growing population center in the country, a fact that “grabbed me by the throat and made my heart start racing.” Lots of people moving into an area typified by upper middle class Americans certainly set a solid stage for numerical growth – a very pragmatic view.

On page 38, Warren recommends a list of preachers he heard on the radio. While several on Warren’s list are sound pastors, he recommends to his reader Robert Schuller and John Wimber as well. No disciple of Christ should recommend these false teachers to anyone, much less the wide and long term audience of a book.

And on the next page, Warren says that, with Saddleback, he ”determined to begin with unbelievers, rather than a core of committed Christians.” Consider this statement carefully. In the first case, the church is comprised of believers, not those who don’t believe. By purposefully refusing to build his church surrounded by mature saints, there was nobody to hold Warren accountable as a preacher. Who in this group of lost folks that he gathered could understand anything spiritual? The Bible tells us those who are lost cannot discern spiritual matters. A “pastor” with only lost people in his “church” is no pastor. What Warren started was an evangelistic outreach to middle class lost Americans – not a church. Near the end of this page Warren tells us he spent 12 weeks studying lost folks in order to know what his “church” should be like. “No planning” went into the founding of Saddleback, he told us. Studying heathens, rather than scripture, was how he planned Saddleback. Apparently without any elders or other biblical safeguards, he was swept away by one of the “spiritual waves” he was surfing for.

Page 44 – “pastor” Warren excitedly recounts how Saddleback “caught a wave”, when over 200 heathens showed up to the service designed with them in mind. While many churches have operated in temporary settings, Warren touts Saddleback’s “homeless” years as if they were a special virtue. Thankfully, he recounts a proper understanding of the Great Commission (page 46), yet he leaves this reader wondering how many of his “seekers” make it around the “bases” to becoming a “servant-hearted Christian.”

Starting on page 47, Warren uses “conventional wisdom” to create several straw-man myths to knock down.

“Myth #1: The Only Thing That Large Churches Care About Is Attendance.” While many have rightfully pointed out the tendency of many large churches to focus too much attention on attendance, I have never heard of any rational person saying it’s the only thing. Warren’s own words, with the series of “if” statements leave out the essential bit of the Gospel, wherein the lost are confronted with their sin and the attendant need of a Savior. He “validates” his Gospel-lite by observing, “it’s happening all over the world.” On page 49 we are told that “Intentionally setting up a strategy and a structure to force ourselves to give equal attention to each purpose is what being a purpose-driven church is all about.” None of Warren’s 5 listed purposes (page 49) convey the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Myths 2, 3, & 4: Once again, Warren touts all-or-nothing myths that are, in truth, common failings among many churches. In talking about purpose #4, Warren discloses that his view of church discipline consists of dropping from membership those rogues who fail to fulfill the membership covenant. I don’t think that’s what the Lord tells us in Matthew 18.
“Myth #5: If You Are Dedicated Enough, Your Church Will Grow.” Any pastor who believes this “myth” has lost sight of Who builds the church. To counter “good, godly pastors” who are dedicated yet have churches that are not growing, Warren provides a prescription that follows the same rabbit trail as his “myth” – relying on human effort.
“Myth #7: All God Expects of Us Is Faithfulness” In the short list that follows, Warren tells us we must also bear fruit (true) and makes it sound as if we can make ourselves be fruitful. Bearing spiritual fruit is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of saints, not a trait the person can develop.

Let me take a break and say that I think pages 64, 65, 68 – 79, and 393 & 394 are sound teaching. Not all in this book is worthless or dangerous, but even these passages are mere “spiritual cotton candy”.

On page 77, Warren uses metaphorical, non-Biblical definitions to build a case for churches being driven. In Scripture, the word drive and derivatives are used in conjunction with people being punished. Those being treated kindly by God are led, as sheep, not driven. Context is key to proper interpretation, and Warren strips a word out of its Biblical context and uses its tertiary meaning to lay the foundation for his whole trademarked “driven” model, pulling people away from the Biblical view of how God leads His children.

Near the bottom of page 79, Warren gives a welcome warning to not “allow seekers to drive the total agenda of the church.” – but I must confess that this book, as a whole, leads me to believe Warren allows “seekers” to drive entirely too much of his church’s agenda.

After listing, on pages 77 – 79, seven things that should not drive churches (tradition, personality, finances, programs, buildings, events, and seekers), he reveals, on page 80, “What is needed today are churches that are driven by purpose instead of by other forces.” And, “You must begin to look at everything your church does through the lens of five New Testament purposes”. Warren’s 5 purposes are culled from scripture, but, again, churches and saints are to be led by the Spirit of God – not driven by anything. And his 5 purposes are not “the lens” of the Word.

On pages 86 & 87, Warren uses different Bible paraphrases to ensure the word “purpose” is used. On page 91, he tells us that the church in Philippi was “captivated by Paul’s mission” (Philippians 4:15); whereas Paul makes it clear that he preached Christ crucified and resurrected – people were captivated by Christ and led by His Spirit, not Paul’s “mission”.

On page 93, we are pointed to scripture for the correct question, but led to Warren’s self-proclaimed mentor, heathen business guru Peter Drucker, for the diagnostic standard: “Your church’s purpose statement must become the standard by which you measure your congregation’s health and growth.” Oops. I thought the Bible and the Holy Spirit give us everything needed to live a righteous life in Christ Jesus (2 Peter 2:1 – 3)

Page 95: Warren tells about a church that he claims was “theologically sound” and “sound asleep”. He says, “the church leaders had become lazy and lethargic.” That does not sound like a “theologically sound” church to me. It appears to be labeled as such to create a straw man to be knocked down by Warren.

On the next page, Warren tells us, “Prior to starting Saddleback Church I took six months to do an extensive, personal Bible study on the church”. Remember page 27 – not much planning went into Saddleback? As part of Warren’s Bible study on the church, about a third of his listed scripture passages are from the four Gospel accounts – they describe Christ’s life, but not the church. Remember – most of the life of Christ took place before the New Testament church was founded.

In Part Two, Warren describes “the 5 purposes for the church” – Biblically sound purposes but not completely sound in his exposition on them. “Purpose #3: Go and make disciples. This purpose we call evangelism.” One must indeed evangelize (preach the Gospel to) lost folks before they can be discipled, but the focus of this aspect of the Great Commission is on the making of disciples – not evangelism. Seeker sensitive churches are widely critiqued as being ineffective in discipleship – this error may explain that, in part.

In describing Saddleback’s purpose statement, Warren notes “three important distinctives”, the first of which is, “it is stated in terms of results rather than in terms of activity.” This is a common failing of man – trying to control the results of his activities; pragmatism defined. (From John MacArthur: “What is pragmatism? Basically it is the philosophy that results determine meaning, truth, and value–what will work becomes a more important question than what is true. As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside. Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.”) Throughout His Word, God calls His people to obedience – not to results. Often, the results He brings about are not what man expects or would seek. I believe the Biblical pattern is to remind us that our efforts have no merit before God – only the work of Jesus does.

On page 109, Warren sums up his argument for your church to adopt his purpose-driven model by saying, “To do less is to leave to chance the great responsibility we’ve given by our Lord Jesus Christ.” (emphasis mine) This is another glimpse into what appears to be Warren’s Armenian view of God. And if recommending Schuller and Wimber are not enough, Warren touts David (or Paul) Yonggi Cho’s occult Central Church in Seoul, Korea. This man has written “You can create the presence of Jesus with your mouth. He is bound by your lips and by your words.” He and Schuller are fans of one another and disciples of the risen Lord Jesus should view neither of them credibly.

In chapter 6, Warren teaches pastors how to communicate their purposes. He reviews the narrative of Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem and discovers what he calls, “the Nehemiah principle”. Since the Jews working on the wall grew discouraged after 26 days of work, Warren projects that onto every church and declares, “Vision and purpose must be restated every twenty-six days to keep the church moving in the right direction.” Certainly, a degree of repetition is a hallmark of effective communication. But the larger issue is that of deriving a key principle from a narrative contained in scripture. This is a dangerous practice, the best example I can think of being Bruce Wilkerson’s subtly deceptive book, “The Prayer of Jabez”.

On pages 113 and 114, Warren encourages good personal management techniques – once again showing how to create “good results” by manipulating people and calling it God’s work. “People tend to do whatever gets rewarded, so make heroes of people in your church when they do the work of the church.” God tells us not to seek the applause or rewards of men, but to trust God who is faithful to reward those walk by faith, not by sight. Biblical leadership often flies in the face of accepted “good personal management techniques.”

Warren stays on track into chapter 7, opening with a story about George Whitfield and John Wesley. Whitfield preached 18,000 sermons to 100,000 people but left no organization behind, whereas Wesley left us the Methodist denomination – as if what we can see today determines the value of the work these men did. And as far as I can tell, the Lord Jesus did not leave us much of an organization – what would Warren say about His legacy? Further in this chapter, pages 126 & 127, Warren recommends false teachers among others who are Biblically sound. Check out the teachings of Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and Peter Wagner – men who think themselves modern prophets and apostles of the church.

In discussing Saddleback’s “5 Circles of Community”, pages 131 and following, Warren tells us he focuses evangelism efforts on those who have already attended his church. He is either derelict in failing to send witnesses out into the lost world or admitting his “church” is fairly well full of lost folks. He admits that a heathen cannot worship God, but is “convinced that genuine worship is a powerful witness to unbelievers if it is done in a style that makes sense to them.” Genuine worship is a spiritual act and impossible for a lost person to comprehend. But note that Warren emphasizes the style of worship, as if the emotional connection with the music can save anyone. And this from a man who adamantly maintains style and methods don’t matter in justifying his use of all sorts of culturally relevant music and drama. He goes on to say, “If an unbeliever makes a commitment to regular attendance at Saddleback, I believe it will be just a matter of time until he accepts Christ.” With Warren’s declared determination to avoid preaching the law or anything that would convict a lost person of his sin, one wonders what in Saddleback would cause anyone to be saved. Time hanging with supposed saints won’t save anyone unless the Gospel is preached – which does not appear to happen at Saddleback.

On page 133, Warren describes Saddleback’s membership covenant, which requires “a commitment to three spiritual habits: (1) having a daily quiet time, (2) tithing ten percent of their income (Nowhere in scripture are Christian instructed – even implicitly – to tithe, but give as the Spirit of God leads and not under compulsion. – 2 Corinthians 9:6 & 7), and (3) being active in a small group.” This sounds like the chains of legalism – whereas the Bible tells Saints to be led by the Spirit in such matters. He sets up this disclosure by describing people who are “dedicated to growing in discipleship” … “but they have not yet gotten involved in ministry.” This is a contradiction in terms, indicating that pastor Rick has a non-Biblical definition of discipleship.

Warren says, “Jesus started where people were – at their level of commitment – but he never left them there.” I do not see this when I read the Bible: lost folks have NO commitment to Christ. He says Jesus “didn’t lay any heavy requirement” on John and Andrew, but every Jewish boy knew the total commitment required when a Rabbi bid one, “come”. Further on page 135, Warren claims that Christ did not issue “his ultimate challenge to the crowd” until these people had hung around Him for three years and saw the ways in which He loved them. “Jesus was able to ask for that kind of commitment only after demonstrating his love for them and earning their trust.” Unlike sinful man, Jesus the Christ does not need to earn anything before He speaks Truth to anyone. Warren puts too much emphasis on the lost person rather than on the Gospel.

In chapter 8, Warren tells us “There are ten areas you must consider as you begin to reshape your church into a purpose-driven church.” Where in Scripture are pastors advised to “reshape” the churches they shepherd? He says he cautions other churches to not clone Saddleback, yet lists 10 mandatory “principles”, 5 purposes, and his own “circles of influence” that these churches must embrace. “Notice that I suggest you grow your church from the outside in, rather than from the inside out.” Read the book of Acts – the church was made up of saints and disciples who were sent out into the cities, the reverse of what Pastor Rick suggests. “The problem I have found with an ‘inside-out’ approach is that by the time the church planter has ‘discipled’ his core, they have often lost contact with the community and are actually afraid of interacting with the unchurched.” This is another indication that Pastor Rick knows very little of Biblical discipleship, but at least gives credit for this backwards idea where it is due – false apostle C. Peter Wagner!

On page 139, we find out that the first year of Saddleback, when ostensibly everyone was lost except (?) Pastor Rick, he “preached very simple, straightforward evangelistic series such as ‘Good News About Common Problems’ and ‘God’s Plan for Your Life.’” There are pop-psychology messages with a Bible flavor – not evangelistic, or Gospel, presentations. How can he say that “most of them (the 200 attenders) were brand new believers.” considering his messages? God’s Word shows the error of this approach: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:12 – 14

In a highlight box on page 156, we are admonished, “Never criticize any method that God is blessing!” Yet all the criteria Warren urges us to use are that which the eye can see, and ignores the Biblical command to “test all things, hold on to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), with “good” being in accordance with God’s view. On page 157 we are urged to use market research to determine “when, where, and how” evangelism should be pursued and on page 158 tells us a church “driven by market forces rather than the Word of God” will be “unstable and unbiblical.” One page is wrong, one is right.

Page 160, Warren continues in his study of man as first priority: “I must pay as much attention to the geography, customs, culture, and religious background of my community as I do to those who live in Bible times if I am to faithfully communicate God’s Word.” The Word of God cannot be understood or communicated unless one seeks to know the literal, grammatical, and historical context of the text. Nobody in scripture paid that much attention to the spiritually dead people they encountered. They proclaimed the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus and commended men to believe on Him!

Pastor Rick advises us to tailor the presentation based on the worldly concerns our “crowd” is perceived as having – resulting in a false gospel that might as well be delivered by Joel Osteen. By telling lost folks how God can make their marriage better, we teach people to look to the Lord for temporal rewards that satisfy our flesh. But in truth, lost people need to know they are dead in sin, convicted by the Law, so they might realize their deepest need and cry out to the Lamb of God for mercy. If “god” makes their life more comfortable and they are not confronted with their rebellion against the Holy Creator God, we have made their path to hell all the more pleasant – heaping judgment on ourselves (James 3:1).

Opening up chapter 10, page 173, Warren declares, “Even a casual reading of the New Testament will show that the Gospel spread primarily through relationships.” Relationships are important, but the Gospel was and is spread through the preaching of it – mostly to people the preacher knows only superficially. In the next page, we are told, “The people your church is most likely to reach are those who match the existing culture of your church.” This is true if you do not make disciples and send them out into the world to proclaim the Gospel to all tongues and nations. The church is not intended to be a reflection of the culture – it is, by definition, counter culture and intended to make a difference in the world. Warren’s advice is for the church to be conformed to patterns of the world, contrary to Romans 12:1 – 2.

Pastor Rick reinforces this un-Biblical nonsense on pages 188 – 189, where we are told to think like lost people. This is Warren’s interpretation of the scriptural mandate to “understand the times”? He shows a shallow view of the Lord: “Jesus often knew what unbelievers were thinking. He was effective in dealing with people because he understood and was able to defuse the mental barriers they held.” (emphasis mine) We are to believe that Jesus sometimes did not know what people were thinking – a limited God. Warren tells us Christ relied on popular psychological theory in order to effectively deal with His creatures. And we are once again told, “We must learn to think like unbelievers in order to win them. … “The problem is, the longer you are a believer, the less you think like an unbeliever.” The Bible tell us the old man is dead – we have been re-born as children of God and are now “a peculiar people”; that we are to be salt and light; that lost folk love darkness because their deeds are dark; and that we are not to hide our light under a bushel. Pastor Rick thinks the church exists to be valued by pagans! Paul gives a different prescription in 2 Corinthians 4:3 – 6: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

You can read many objections from Rick Warren anytime someone publicly associates him with Robert Schuller. But again, on page 190, Warren shows us how big an impact Schuller had on him. It should not be a surprise that so many of Schuller’s people pleasing ways are embraced and endorsed by Warren. Near the bottom of Page 191, this pearl: “The unchurched aren’t asking for watered-down messages, just practical ones. They want to hear something on Sunday that they can apply on Monday.” Warren’s idea of church is to help lost folks have a better life, according to the world’s standard. The Creator’s idea of church is for the saints to come together for worship, discipleship, fellowship, and be sent into the world proclaiming the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And yes, we welcome lost people into the church – we simply don’t expect them to be comfortable there. They should be confronted with the Word of God and their sinful nature.

Warren’s own “tale of success” in the early days of Saddleback tells the sad truth in what is left unsaid. He defined Saddleback as “a church for the unchurched”, and he attracted many of them, summing up with, “You have to decide who you want to impress.” Warren wants to impress lost folk – his charge, however, is to honor God. On page 195: “This is the heart of Saddleback’s evangelism strategy: We must be willing to catch fish on their own terms.” Fish don’t want to be caught! And lost men do not seek after God. His Word doesn’t tell us to be on the same wavelength as lost men, He tells us to be fishers of men – different from them, with a mission they cannot understand. Warren tells us (page 197) that he has determined that Jesus had no “standard approach” in evangelism. He is talking about “style points”, not content or motive. I am convinced that a careful reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus did have a “standard approach. Evangelist Ray Comfort sums it up thusly – “With the Law we break the proud heart; with the gospel we heal the broken heart.” And, “If we care about the lost, we will not hesitate to speak to them about sin, righteousness, and judgment … the way Jesus did.” In Mark 10:17 – 22, the Lord used the law to expose the rich man as idolater, in John 5:45 – 47, Jesus confronts the Jews with the accusation of the Law of Moses. In John 4:4 – 26 the Lord seeks out the woman at the well and uses the law to gently confront her with her sin – violating the 7^th commandment.

On page 219, Pastor Rick says, “Jesus often established a beachhead for evangelism in a person’s life by meeting a felt need.” And he cites not one example – because there are none. Dr. Luke records this encounter with the “crowd”: “And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25 – 27) The Apostle John recorded this encounter (John 6:24 – 27): “When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” And in verses 52 – 61: ”The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” Culminating in verses 65 & 66: “And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

Jesus doesn’t sound like Rick Warren. To Whom shall we listen?

Ever the pragmatist, Warren tells us (page 224) that a passage in Luke 4 is all about Jesus “meeting needs and healing hurts.” Jesus used that well known passage from Isaiah to establish His claim as Messiah, not “meet needs or heal hurts”. On page 230, he beats the same drum: “The unchurched are not asking that we change the message or even dilute it, only that we show its relevance. … I’ve found that the unchurched in America are very interested in Bible doctrine when it is applied in practical and relevant ways to their lives.” What I’ve observed is that lost folks – whether they be “churched” or “unchurched” – want their ears tickled. They want to be told that God loves them and wants them to be healthy and wealthy – things that are “practical and relevant”. This is why prosperity gospel pimps such as T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen can fill up stadiums! The Word of God tells us to preach the simple Truth and not work to earn the approval of men. Lost folk do not need motivational messages on how to “live large with Jesus” – they need to repent and be saved.

Warren thinks (page 232) that the major purpose of Christ’s parables was to entertain folk and ensure they would remember His story. But in Matthew 15, Mark 4, Mark 7, Luke 8, John 10 and other passages, His very own disciples failed to understand the parable and sought an explanation. And while Pastor Rick cites Matthew 13:34, he did so as a proof-text, as verse 35 makes clear: He spoke in parables to fulfill scripture, not to satisfy the felt needs of unchurched Harry. But if His purpose was as Warren claims, why did so many people need – and still need – an explanation of them? To close this question, the Lord Himself gives us the answer in Matthew 13:10 – 13 (And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.) And Luke 8:9 – 10 (And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.)

On page 241, “America’s Pastor” tells us “More people are won to Christ by feeling God’s presence than by all our apologetic arguments combined.” This is a false argument: apologetics is not what wins people to Christ – the Gospel does that. It is by preaching the Word of the Lord that people are saved – not by feeling anything. He ascribes the salvation of the 3,000 people recorded in Acts 2 to their having felt God’s presence. But the Bible makes it clear that the Spirit of God empowered Peter and it was the Word of God proclaimed by Peter that caused the response. Read Acts 2:1 – 36 to see the set-up and the message of Christ crucified. Then in verses 37 – 41: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

Do you perceive these people were saved by having “felt God’s presence” or by the Word of God piercing their sinful hearts?

Page 243, Warren joins countless seeker sensitive fans by misappropriating 1 Corinthians 14:23. Paul’s main argument was not to restrict the use of tongues so lost people wouldn’t think them foolish – this is a final argument in Paul’s long, passionate discourse against the improper use of this spiritual gift. His main point was to encourage the saints to speak in a known tongue so others in the church could understand them. It’s almost “and by the way, don’t you see how a heathen who might wander in here could think you mad?” It was not normative in the early church for lost people to fill up the meeting place. The church was of and for believers.

On pages 244 and 245 Warren furthers his humanistic view that unchurched people ought to have their felt needs addressed from the pulpit. He again tells us these unchurched “expect to hear the Bible when they come to church.” How would such a person know what to expect from the Word of God? Go back to 1 Corinthians 2:12 – 14. Pastor Rick tells us “They are looking for solutions, not a scolding.” The problem for Rick and other seeker sensitive pastors is that unless a lost person is confronted with his condition (being dead is sin) he will not see any value in the Lamb of God. The Gospel is not a scolding – but neither is it offering solutions to life’s circumstantial problems. Warren instructs, “Design one worship service to edify believers and another service to evangelize the unchurched friends brought by your members.” He then describes how he has marginalized the Saints by devoting weekends at Saddleback to lost folks. We can readily surmise that Saddleback is a church on Wednesday evenings, but not on Saturdays or Sundays.

In chapter 14 – Designing a Seeker-Sensitive Service, Warren once again relies on and recommends a false prophet to make his point – citing “Apostle” Peter Wagner on page 267: “When you run out of space, you experience what Pete Wagner calls ‘sociological strangulation’.” But many churches have experienced true fellowship and spiritual growth while struggling with the logistical constraints of what experts see as too little space. My wife heard a pastor in such a situation say, “Some pastors think you need 200 square feet per person. We have 200 people per square feet!” And he was praising God – not complaining about being “sociologically strangled.”

On to chapter 16 – Preaching to the Unchurched, Pastor Rick says, “The common ground we have with unbelievers is not the Bible, but our common needs, hurts, and interests as human beings.” This is fine guidance on how to start a fraternal organization, such as a Rotary Club – the Bible tells us that unbelievers’ greatest need is salvation. That we saints share some of the same sinful “habits and hang-ups” as the “unchurched” can be an encouragement to the lost, as we teach them that all are unworthy apart from Christ. Nowhere in this chapter does Pastor Rick advise the use of the law to convict people of their sin; he only wants the lost folk to know they are valuable and loved, etc. They may well go to hell thinking this, having never been convicted of sin or saved by grace. Good feelings save nobody.

On page 312, Warren poses a handful of questions that unchurched people want answered before they are willing to join the church:

Do I fit here?
Does anybody want to know me?
Am I needed?
What is the advantage of joining?
What is required of members?

Rick shows us, once again, that his focus is on growing the “church” by answering the “felt needs” of the flesh – not following the Biblical mandate on how to lead a flock of believers. He is building a social fraternity and calling it “church”.

In chapter 16 – Turning Members into Ministers, Warren mixes some solid Biblical instruction with a humanistic, Jungian psychological matrix appraisal of people – his five SHAPE factors. A detailed comparison of Warren’s SHAPE to Jungian psychology and God’s Word can be found at the end of this review.

Page 384, Warren again confirms he sees man as more important than does our Creator: “The most critical factor in a new ministry isn’t the idea, but the leadership.” Jesus, the most important human ever, said this about Himself vs. the message (or idea): “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)”, “but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, (John 15:15b – 16a).” The Bible tells us the main thing is the message, not the messenger.

Lastly, page 395 – “Purpose-driven churches are led by purpose-driven leaders.” Although I care nothing for Warren’s penchant for using “purpose-driven”, leave it aside. Consider this – Churches are led by leaders. Now consider the Words of the One Who “wrote the Book” on “how to do church”: “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:1 – 2) And recall the Words of Jesus, above – He spoke and worked only what His Father told Him. The only leadership is from God and the truly effective pastor will be purposeful and Spirit led.

Quotes from Schuller – or is it Rick Warren?

Rick Warren denies virtually every connection and influence with or of Robert Schuller. But judge for yourself – read a few choice quotes from Schuller and see if Warren’s teaching doesn’t line up near perfectly. Read more at http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac23.htm

“Yes, here is a theology for church growth. Here is a theology for success, for the secret of success is to find a need and fill it. Truly, when the church reforms and refines all of its theological expressions around every person’s daily need for self-affirmation, it shall flourish ‘like trees planted by rivers of water.’” (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 175)

“People who have studied our work and read our materials have said that historically we are not like other churches. Denominations and religions started with teaching a theology about God. Whenever there was disagreement with each other about a certain detail, the result was to establish a new religion or branch thereof, so today there are many different denominations and lots of different religions. When I started this ministry, I chose to focus on human need and said,

“Let’s ask what a human being really is? What does he need?” And is there a God who can provide for those needs and what kind of God does he need? So we started talking about the needs in humanity and we defined the single deepest need of the human being.”

(Robert Schuller, “Mirror or Window People: Which Are You?” August 2, 2004)

“Classical theology has erred in its insistence that theology be ‘God-centered,’ not ‘man-centered’.” (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 64)

“The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person. Rather, we have started from the ‘unworthiness of the sinner,’ and that starting point has set the stage for the glorification of human shame in Christian theology.” (Robert Schuller, “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation,” page 162)

Home

CHARTING THE WARREN-JUNG CONNECTION

(extracted from http://www.sacredsandwich.com/warren_jung_chart.htm)

THEIR CONNECTION ON PERSONALITY THEORY

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“When you minister in a manner consistent with the personality God gave you, you experience fulfillment, satisfaction, and fruitfulness.” (The Purpose Driven Life, p. 246)“…when you are forced to minister in a manner that is “out of character” for your temperament, it creates tension and discomfort, requires extra effort and energy, and produces less than the best results. This is why mimicking someone else’s ministry never works. You don’t have their personality.” (PDL, p. 245)

“…the ultimate aim and strongest desire of all mankind is to develop that fulness (sic) of life which is called personality… To the extent that a man is untrue to the law of his being and does not rise to personality, he has failed to realize his life’s meaning.” (The Development of Personality, Collected Works 17; from The Essential Jung, pg. 191, 207)

There is absolutely no biblical precedent for this position. Personality typology has never been a criteria for God choosing someone for ministry, but is in great part grounded in Jungian psychology. Did Paul rely on personality assessment to guide his ministry? Hardly…

“God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God.” 1 Cor 1:27-29

“And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Cor 12:9-10

THEIR CONNECTION ON A MUTUAL BELIEF IN THE “UNCONSCIOUS”

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“You may be driven by a painful memory, a haunting fear, or an unconscious belief.” (PDL, p. 27)“(Guilt-driven people) often unconsciously punish themselves by sabotaging their own success.” (PDL, pp. 27-28)

“The unconscious . . . is the source of the instinctual forces of the psyche and of the forms or categories that regulate them, namely the archetypes.” (The Structure of the Psyche, CW 8, par. 342)“Constant observation pays the unconscious a tribute that more or less guarantees its cooperation. One of the most important tasks of psychic hygiene [is] to pay continual attention to the symptomatology of unconscious contents and processes.” (The Portable Jung, New York: Penguin Books, 1986, p. 156)

The “unconscious” is the foundational concept of both Freudian and Jungian psychology, and has no biblical basis whatsoever. In fact, Scripture does not allow for the idea that people are “driven” by an “unconscious belief.” By endorsing the idea of the unconscious, Warren is promoting the Jungian belief that people must analyze the forces of the unconscious to discover their life’s purpose. According to Scripture, any driving force outside of God’s will is sin, no matter where it resides. Psychology, however, downplays our personal accountability for sin by making the “unconscious” the ultimate reservoir and bastion of unavoidable human instinct.

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23

THEIR CONNECTION ON UNCONSCIOUS METAPHORS & IMAGES

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“If I asked how you picture life, what image would come to your mind? That image is your life metaphor. It’s the view of life that you hold, consciously or unconsciously, in your mind.” (PDL, pp. 41-42)“Your unspoken life metaphor influences your life more than you realize. It determines your expectations, your values, your relationships, your goals, and your priorities.” (PDL, p. 42)

“An archetypal content expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors.” (“The Psychology of the Child Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 267)Archetypes are not inborn ideas, but “typical forms of behaviour which, once they become conscious, naturally present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness.” (Collected Works 8, par. 435)

“Indeed, the fate of the individual is largely dependent on unconscious factors.” (“Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” CW 9)

The analysis of “metaphors” housed in the unconscious is a trademark concept of psychology, not of Scripture. The use of images, fantasies, and dreams to better understand our “unconscious” is a signature feature of Jungian psychotherapy that borders on the occult.

THEIR CONNECTION ON USING JUNGIAN TERMINOLOGY

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“God made introverts and extroverts… He made some people ‘thinkers’ and others ‘feelers.’” (PDL, p. 245)“Your personality will affect how and where you use your spiritual gifts and abilities. For instance, two people may have the same gift of evangelism, but if one is introverted and other is extroverted, that gift will be expressed in different ways.” (PDL, p. 245)

“Ask yourself questions:… Am I more introverted or extroverted? Am I more a thinker or a feeler?” (PDL, pp.251-252)

“Two types (of typical differences in human psychology) especially become clear to me; I have termed them the introverted and the extraverted types.” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6 par. 1)“I have found from experience that the basic psychological functions, this is, functions which are genuinely as well as essentially different from other functions, prove to be thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these functions habitually predominates, a corresponding type results. I therefore distinguish a thinking, a feeling, a sensation, and an intuitive type. Each of these types may moreover be either introverted or extraverted…” (“Introduction” Psychological Types, CW 6)

Warren is explicitly using the specific terminology of the psychological typology theory originally conceived by Carl Jung. Despite the claims of his supporters, Warren has clearly based his Personality Theory (the “P” in his SHAPE teaching) on the unbiblical foundation of Jungian psychology.“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 1 Cor 2:12-13

THEIR CONNECTION ON THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“The Bible gives us plenty of proof that God uses all types of personalities. Peter was a sanguine. Paul was a choleric. Jeremiah was a melancholy. When you look at the personality differences in the twelve disciples, it’s easy to see why they sometimes had interpersonal conflict.” (PDL, p. 245)“There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ temperament for ministry.” (PDL, p. 245)

“…the physicians of ancient times…tried to reduce the bewildering diversity of mankind to orderly groups… The very names of the Galenic temperaments betray their origin in the pathology of the four “humours.” Melancholic denotes a preponderance of black bile, phlegmatic a preponderance of phlegm or mucus, sanguine a preponderance of blood, and choleric a preponderance of choler, or yellow bile.” (“Psychological Typology” CW 6)“The whole make-up of the body, its constitution in the broadest sense, has in fact a very great deal to do with psychological temperament…” (“Psychological Typology” CW 6)

Despite Warren’s claim, the Bible never gives “proof” of the classification of personalities; it is a purely pagan concoction. The four temperaments, as conceived by Hippocrates and later developed by Galen, was a prevalent Greek philosophy during the time of Paul’s apostolic ministry. Unlike Warren and Jung, however, Paul did not implement these Greeks ideas into his teachings. In fact, he categorically rejected them and “determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (I Cor 2:2).“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” I Timothy 6:20

Worse yet, Warren is teaching that a person’s “no right or wrong” personality is somehow unaffected by the fall and is always beneficial for ministry. How, we ask, does a “phlegmatic temperament” towards laziness and slothfulness serve God’s purpose in ministry?

THEIR CONNECTION ON PERSONALITY TESTING

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“Today there are many books and tools that can help you understand your personality so you can determine how to use it for God.” (PDL, p. 246)

MBTI is “based on Jung’s theory of psychological types.” (Isabel Briggs Myers, Introduction to Type, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983, p.4)“The (MBTI) Indicator was developed specifically to carry Carl Jung’s theory of type (Jung, 1921, 1971) into practical application.” (Dr. Gordon Lawrence, People Types & Tiger Stripes, p. 6, also p. x)

“Carl Jung’s psychology lies behind…the MBTI.” (Robert Innes, Personality Indicators and The Spiritual Life, p.8)

Without qualifying this statement, Warren is promoting any and all Jungian personality and temperament tests and theories, including the widely-used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Kiersey Temperament Sorter (an offshoot of the MBTI), and the Enneagram Test, which has its origin in Sufism, a mystical offshoot of Islam. (Click here for more information on Enneagram).Despite the contrary advice offered by Warren, Christians must acknowledge the Bible as the only book needed to understand the human condition:

“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

(See also II Timothy 3:16-17)

THEIR CONNECTION ON THE ENDORSEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“Every behavior is motivated by a belief, and every action is prompted by an attitude. God revealed this thousands of years before psychologists understood it.” (PDL, p. 181)

“(Unconscious phenomena) manifest themselves in the individual’s behaviour… ” (“Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” CW 9)“Modern psychological development leads to a much better understanding as to what man really consists of.” (“Psychology and Religion” CW 11)

Warren is suggesting here that psychologists have the same understanding as God on the issue of human behavior, thus putting man’s “wisdom” on equal footing with God’s revelation.If Warren truly believes in the preeminence of God’s revelation to understand man, then why does he rely so heavily on the “useless wisdom” of psychology instead of Scripture?

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS‘; and again, ‘THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.’” I Cor 3:19-20

THEIR CONNECTION ON FINDING AND DEVELOPING PERSONALITY

WARREN

JUNG

BIBLE

“The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape. To do this you must discover your shape, learn to accept and enjoy it, and then develop it to its fullest potential.” (PDL, p. 249)The SHAPE program states: “To discover your S.H.A.P.E. is to discover where God is calling you to do His work in the world.”

“Only the man who can consciously assent to the power of the inner voice becomes a personality.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17)“The achievement of personality means nothing less than the optimum development of the whole individual human being.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17)

“In so far as every individual has the law of his life inborn in him, it is theoretically possible for any man to follow this law and to become a personality, this is, to achieve wholeness.” (“The Development of Personality” CW 17)

Finding your SHAPE has no biblical support. Warren’s teaching that one must “discover his shape” is philosophically and systematically akin to Jung’s teaching that a man must “consciously assent to the power of the inner voice” and be true to “the law of his being.”While Warren has rightly acknowledged God’s sovereign purpose in creating us, he has mistakenly made God’s divine purpose synonymous with our so-called “shape” by advocating the Jungian idea of developing the personality to “achieve wholeness.” This Jungian process, however, does not serve God, but serves the god within us.

Scripture calls for an active, heartfelt obedience to God’s will through the transforming power of the Spirit, not a misguided exploration of our natural psychological makeup to define our God-given purpose.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” Proverbs 3:5-6

“…your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” 1 Cor 2:5

CONCLUSION: THIS IS NOT SIMPLY “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION”

Yes, Jesus associated with sinners, but he certainly didn’t borrow his teachings from the Pharisees or any other false teachers. Clearly there is a very tangible connection between Rick Warren’s SHAPE teaching on personality and the psychological theories of Carl Jung. Not only does Warren base his teachings on parallel psychological concepts, but he uses exact Jungian terms to make his case. By focusing on assessing and developing one’s personality as the key to a successful life or ministry, Warren, like Jung, is promoting a reliance on one’s inner self instead of on God’s transcendent truth and the working of the Holy Spirit. As a popular Christian teacher, how can Warren ignore the crucial biblical truths of the sufficiency of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit to perfectly furnish every Christian with the ability to minister according to God’s purpose?

Stuart L Brogden Home

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren

I Love My Dad

leetomlin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:03:52 +0000

This is a completely different kind of post from what I would normally post on here, but I need a place to share my heart and this is about the only semi-appropriate platform that I have where I can share this. So, Enjoy.

Over the past few weeks I have been burdened with a problem that is not new to man, but it is more real than ever in my life right now. This new understanding that I am going through will be tough to explain, but I have to try. I am learning more and more recently that there are many bitter, angry, mean, and hateful people in this world. But that is not new to me, I have always known that. What is new is realizing how many of those people are simply mis-informed. Let me say that again: Most of the mean, hateful people in this world are acting on the partial information that they have received. Many times the information that they justify all of their anger and their bitterness on, is not even true.

Do you understand that? I have seen 3 very serious examples of this in the last 3 weeks. Situations where friends and/or family have spewed anger, bitterness, and hatefulness all over the place, and all over the people who I love, simply because they do not understand the whole picture of what is going on.

In no way do I claim to be exempt from this “bitterness bias”. I have to admit that I tend to react to and believe the first “side of the story” that I hear just like many of the people who I have on my heart. But how long can one go before they step back, and realize the fact that there are two sides to every story. Does that ever happen? Then I must also ask: Is there any bitterness or anger in my life that is illegitimate because I do not know the truth about the situation.

I want to share just a few details about one scenario, but I will do it in a way as not to offend anyone, because my desire in writing this is not to make anyone upset, but to simply encourage them to find the truth, or at least understand where some of my family and I are coming from.

I Love My Dad! In fact, I am pretty sure that I love him more than anyone in this whole world second to my Mom and maybe my sister, but I doubt it . He has made some poor choices in the last year, but that does not mean that I do not love him. My greatest desire regarding my Dad, is that he would be restored and reunited with my Mom. There are however some biblical principles that must be exemplified before everything can be normal again. Repentance, Love, Trust and Time,are a few things that must be a part of this restoration.

Until repentance is shown, things can never be normal. Without repentance there is no remission of sins. We should never pretend that things are normal, if repentance has not been shown.

Yesterday, Will and I went and got a haircut. As we were walking out to the car, Will took off towards the road and I very forcefully said: “WILL, STOP! DO NOT TAKE ANOTHER STEP”. The argument could be made that I do not love my son because of the tone that was used at that moment, but that argument would be absurd. I was bold and firm, maybe even harsh sounding to some, but it was not because of anger, it was because of my love for Him. I was direct because I was concerned about his life, his health, his future. I want the best for his life, so I will do whatever I can to protect him.

I think that this illustration applies to my relationship with my Dad. I love my Dad, way more than any critic loves him, way more than his enablers love him, and way more than the people who will just pretend with him like everything is ok. My desire is not that we pretend like things are great, but that we deal with the sin, Restore and Reunite for God’s glory, then things really will be great.

If this offends anyone please let me know, like I said: My desire is not that anyone would be offended by this, but simply that a few people, including my Dad, would understand my love and my heart during this time.

I think there is a huge lesson in this that I want to remember and it may help you out as well: Who are you bitter with? Who are you angry with? When you read the word Hate, who do you think of? Well, don’t gossip about them, don’t just delete them off your facebook, deal with it. With an open heart, and a godly spirit, and the humility of Christ, deal with it.

Relational Database Technology

HpVirus — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:44:57 +0000

1. The following statements are true regarding tables in a RDBMS: (Choose Two)
A table is a logical object only. They cannot be created in a RDBMS.
A table holds all the data necessary about something in the real world, such as employees, invoices or customers. (*)
Tables contain fields, which can be found at the intersection of a row and a column. (*)
It is not possible to relate multiple tables within an RDBMS.

2. RDBMS stands for
Relational database manipulation system.
Relational database management system. (*)
Relational database mutilation system.
Relational database management style.

3. Once data has been created in a RDBMS, the ony way of getting it out again is by writing a Java or C program. No other languages can be used to access that data. True or False?
True
False (*)

4. The following table creation statement is valid. True or False?
CREATE TABLE country (
ID NUMBER(6) NOT NULL,
NAME VARCHAR2(30) NOT NULL,
LOC VARCHAR2(40),
REG_ID NUMBER,
NAME VARCHAR2(25))
True
False (*)

Introduction to Relational Database Concepts

HpVirus — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:18:32 +0000

1. One or more columns in a primary key can be null. True or False?
True
False (*)

2. Foreign keys cannot be null when:
It is part of a primary key. (*)
It refers to another table.
It contains three or more columns.

3. A foreign key always refers to a primary key in the same table. True or False?
True
False (*)

4. The explanation below defines which constraint type:
A primary key must be unique, and no part of the primary key can be null.
Entity integrity. (*)
Referential integrity.
Column integrity.
User-defined integrity.

5. The explanation below defines which constraint type:
A column must contain only values consistent with the defined data format of the column.
Entity integrity.
Referential integrity.

Column integrity. (*)
User-defined integrity.

6. Column integrity refers to:
Columns always having values.
Columns always containing positive numbers.
Columns always containing values consistent with the defined data format. (*)
Columns always containing text data less than 255 characters.

7. The explanation below is an example of what constraint type:
The value in the dept_no column of the EMPLOYEES table must match a value in the dept_no column in the DEPARTMENTS table.
Entity integrity.
Referential integrity. (*)
Column integrity.
User-defined integrity.

8. Identify all of the correct statements that complete this sentence: A primary key is: (Choose Three)
A single column that uniquely identifies each row in a table. (*)
A set of columns that uniquely identifies each row in a table. (*)
A set of columns and keys in a single table that uniquely identifies each row in a single table. (*)
Only one column that cannot be null.

9. The explanation below is an example of what constraint type:
If the value in the balance column of the ACCOUNTS table is below 100, we must send a letter to the account owner which will require extra programming to enforce.
Entity integrity.
Referential integrity.
Column integrity.
User-defined integrity. (*)

10. A table does not have to have a primary key. True or False?
True (*)
False

On the Image of God

rynoyak — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:26:10 +0000

GENESIS 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

The imago dei speaks to the nature of man (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html).

It speaks to certain aspects universal to all people, though there are certain marrings and skews of these attributes as created by God in his own likeness, in the image of himself. The marring is due to sin and the results of sin.

The likeness of God is the first point of import for understanding man and in understanding God’s purpose for man: understanding what “being created in the image of God” means and entails then necessarily defines and gives understanding to who is man and why is he that way.

The image of God may be understood by understanding who is God:

God is holy.
- God is intelligent.
- God is spirit[ual].
- God is love.
  - God is relational.
  - God is Creator.

God created man as a relational being with the purpose of loving God in accordance with God’s character, according to God’s holiness, which deems that man’s love and worship and obedience to God must in line with the holiness of God in the spirit and truth, the motivation/heart and the act, of the love. God’s purpose is that he and men have a relationship, and not just “a” relationship but the exact “right” relationship that God knows and demands as being best.

The second point of import regarding understanding man and God’s purpose for him, as understood by understanding “the image of God,” is the effect of the fall and fellness of man and the effect of the sin of man upon the imago dei:

God’s purpose is man having a [right] relationship with God.
Man’s sins mar his relationships and relating to all of creation and especially to God.
There is a crisis, a break, a change, in the purposed God-man relationship, because of God’s holiness.

The imago dei speaks to the mere likeness, image, not-sameness, of man, who is humble and low from God, the dei, not the imago, though man is also unique and great and high from the rest of Creation; therefore, the imago dei cannot ascend to the dei. Man can’t undo, forgive, change, the sin, the problem, the break: the created can’t create a new creation, only the Creator. Man can’t remake himself in the sense necessary for becoming a new creation.

Man’s problem of sin does not make him worthless or valueless however, as each individual person has value and worth from the fact that they are uniquely and personally creatd by their Creator God who is also wanting to be their Savior! This worth does not make us worthy of God’s perfect love but makes us worthy of not being the object of evil, not being destroyed or destroying ourselves as reflections of the image of God himself. We point to the ultimate worthiness of God.

God created us in his image, and he also regards us each as having worth in the sense that we are uniquely and wonderfully made as “image bearers” by the fact that we are human. We are unique from all of the rest of Creation!

There are almost endless implications for this reality of God’s general regard for us having made us unique of all other created things: how we treat others in general, compassion, respect, patience, kindness, parenting, pregnancy and abortion, the words we use and how we say them.

Our problem of sin, of falling short of perfection and holiness and righteousness, is indeed our problem, but God is here calling and waiting and wanting us to see his light, his plan of giving us his love if we accept him. Many of us many times just don’t accept God’s amazing love for us because we won’t accept him as the One True God.

The good news is that God provides a way through Jesus for us to have that right relationship with him he purposed for us (http://rynoyak.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/what-is-the-gospel-ephesians-21-10-part-iv/).

The wrong route

colbystream — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:00:05 +0000

This week I’ve written about the nature of God, whether he’s absolute or relative. Steph

The Issue

Chris — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:14:19 +0000

Have you ever thought about this? No one ever really knows what you are thinking except you. Unless of course you tell someone exactly what your thinking. But then only you know that they know what your thinking.

No one can read your mind. People can only listen and observe and come to conclusions based on those two things. If I tell someone that the Charlotte Hornets are my favorite NBA team of all time (they are) then how do they know that I’m actually telling the truth……. they dont! They just have to trust me. The banners, t-shirts, and other paraphernalia act to reinforce the notion that I love the Charlotte Hornets but do not make it true. I can tell as many people that I want that I think dairy is evil (it is) but do they really believe I think that?

There comes a point where you just have to choose to trust a person and risk being made a fool or choose to not trust and never really develop any depth of relationship?

To me either way is a great risk, so I chose to trust and give people the benefit of the doubt and risk being screwed. Sometimes I am and other times its very rewarding.

Which do you choose?

You Can't Understand God.

Jeremiah Trein — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:44:52 +0000

You don’t need to be a Christian to read my blog, or this post. That’s the point of this blog and this post, chiefly. Now, I will tell a short story about three people, based on a parable (Matt. 13:1-23) in the Bible:

In all his duties, in all his service, in all his life, Doug had given everything to others. He was a gentle and kind man who would give you his car to drive across the country – even if it meant he’d surely never see it again.

Sure Doug had attended church once, and he heard the pastor’s condemnations and admonitions. He didn’t understand. “This man is evil,” Doug thought. “I would much rather just be nice to people and survive on love for others.” What Doug didn’t know is that even the bad people love their own kind. Love would not be enough.

Doug decided that following a dead man is stupid. We are all alive, and need to live the lives we have.

It wasn’t the first time she had been excited about something; after all, Kim was someone who loved new things – but only for a time. She was a good person, just like Doug. Something always attracted people to Kim. However, Kim was missing something. She had recently had a series of breakups and needed something else.

Kim’s friend invited her to Sunday church service one Saturday night, and Kim, being open to new things and naturally excited, went along. She heard God’s word about Jesus, and weeks later accepted Him as her Lord and Savior. Kim was going strong with church for awhile. She was even dating someone from the church. Soon, however, things got bad again. Kim wasn’t used to this Christian life. It felt like you had to be too perfect. She didn’t understand why her boyfriend didn’t think it was a great idea she end her Friday’s after work hammered drunk.

Kim got tired, and Kim was frustrated, and Kim just gave up Jesus.

In a fit, Aaron screamed at his neighbor. Their dog had kept him up all night. Aaron was nearly an alcoholic with little else going for him, save a few good friends he barely acknowledged anymore.

One night Aaron was crying outside his house. Jacob, one of Aaron’s “friends”, overheard Aaron crying from the alley-way. Aaron’s father had recently not been speaking to him. The only figure of structure, someone to believe in, that Aaron had.

Jacob asked what was wrong and how he could help. By the end of their conversation Jacob was explaining Jesus to Aaron, and reminded Aaron he had grown up without a father, and that he used to steal. By the end of their second hour of talking, Aaron had agreed to give God a try. “But I don’t want to go to church next Sunday,” said Aaron.

Jacob told Aaron: “Right now, all you have to do is surrender everything to God. No true Christian will tell you they were set all right, right away. Tell Him you need Him to enter your life and stay there. I won’t lie, it is hard. It’s hard to continually follow Him and read His word. Do not worry, wait on God and in waiting He will make you strong. God, provides undying love, and hope, and faithfulness. The kind of love, hope, and faithfulness you cannot find on earth. Even between you and your father.”

You can never understand God. That is to say you can never be certain of Him and why He does the things He does.

You can only understand Jesus, and live in God’s word so that you may live by Christ.

With the Love of Him,

Jeremiah

Why Are You Defensive?

Jeremiah Trein — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:15:03 +0000

When people are lonely some may think they lack the social skills and capacity to speak to others.

How wrong I have been on this one before!

It is we who do not know how to speak to them!

You say, “but these people will create an awkward moment and be defensive if we try.”

They want love, kindness, and affection. They’ll talk, you’ll see.

Do you know that you require a special method of communication, too?

Your specific type of communication, the type that develops your relationships, takes a certain kind of person to match it.

Have you wondered why God knows how to calm you, comfort you, love you, protect you, make you smile again, breathe deeply again, and let you find the right person to marry and make little versions of you?

It’s because He knows you inside and out. Jesus was God’s ultimate communication to the earth – He could talk to anybody! Thus, you must “go, and do likewise (Luke 10:25-37)” – even if it is uncomfortable for you.

If you do not know God, He already knows you. He just wants you to start the conversation and get to know Him.

With Love,

Jeremiah

As it is in-clusive

admingroup2 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:30:46 +0000

Go and have a look at our new wiki space at gsw820group2.wikispaces.com.

The Rising Sign: Your Social Persona

joycevanhorn — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:24:50 +0000

What is the rising sign? Literally, it’s where the sun was rising at dawn on the day you were born–hence, it’s how you “dawn” on people. It’s your style, both relational and in your “look.” The rising sign (also known as the ascendant) guards your inner world, protecting those more private parts of you known only to intimates. If you’re doing your rising sign consciously, you have poise, confidence and savoir faire.

Throughout a lifetime, the rising sign changes 3 or 4 times, giving you a social makeover. If you were born with sensitive, protective Cancer rising, for example, at some point it will change to expressive, outgoing Leo rising. At first this will feel like a really bad idea. It’s awkward. Your clothing selection may not suit you anymore. Your behavioral style changes. Friends notice. Ask them what for their honest opinions: ”You love me. Do I look dumb in this outfit?” or “Did what I just said make sense to you?” The new Leo rising may want you to present yourself with more flair and color. When an edgy, passionate Aries rising moves into earthy, sensual Taurus rising, it’s natural to slow down and adopt a simpler, more comfortable style. Once you’ve adjusted to a rising sign change, you discover a new set of needs which correspond with boththe new sign and the planet that rules it.

Want to know more about your own rising sign? Or what it’s changed to now? Call for anappointment. Sliding scale pricing available.

EXCERPTS FROM A RADIO BULLDOG CHAT

THOMAS JOHNSON — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:49:22 +0000

11:09

Moderator:

David Hale will answer your questions about the Bulldogs on Thursday at noon. Leave your questions now in the field below.

Wednesday October 28, 2009 11:09 Moderator

12:00

David Hale:

Happy Thursday, folks. Good to be back with you after a week off. We’ve got a big one this weekend, so let’s get to your questions…

Thursday October 29, 2009 12:00 David Hale

12:00

[Comment From Reverend Thomas Johnson Reverend Thomas Johnson : ]

What has happened with Kiante Tripp? It’s like he has fallen into a black hole. It’s a shame we didn’t leave him at tight end. That seemed to be a natural for him and we could have surely used the blocking.

Thursday October 29, 2009 12:00 Reverend Thomas Johnson

12:01

David Hale:

Yeah, you have to feel for the kid. He’s made every sacrifice asked of him in his career and all it’s gotten him is a whole lot of nothing. You have to wonder how the O line experiment might have worked out if Trinton hadn’t gotten hurt last year and Tripp had a bit more time to develop. As it stands, he says he’s happy to be back at D end, but none of the coaches seem to excited about giving him playing time.

The Curse of Knowledge

Chris — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:18:09 +0000

Lets say that you have spent the last four years of your life in the workplace or in a college or university settings. In that environment you have accrued and learned a certain level of information and accumulated a certain amount of experiences about a particular subject (relevant to everyday life or not). You take that information, some of it affects your daily decisions and some of it does not, and apply it to your life.

You have a certain level of knowledge about something.

Now say you and talking about a subject that you have a great deal of knowledge about with someone who doesnt know near as much. How does this work? How do you get them to the point where you are?

My experience tells me one thing. Its not in showing them how much you know.

I remember a religion class I took in college on Buddhism. They was a concept we discussed called the curse of knowledge. I’m not sure if that is where the concept originated or not but there is some truth to it. Its simply a concept that explores the fact that once you have a certain level of knowledge you can’t imagine what it would be like not to have that knowledge anymore. So in trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t have that knowledge there is often a huge disconnect. The most common example of this is an experiment where a person is asked to “tap” a song for another person. The tapper predicted the listener would guess the song right 50% of the time while they actually only got it right 2.5% of the time. The tapper has an additional element of knowledge that is, knowing what the song is. Chip and Dan Heath in their book Made to Stick describe it this way,

“The problem is that tappers have been given knowledge (the song title) that makes it impossible for them to imagine what it’s like to lack that knowledge. When they’re tapping, they can’t imagine what it’s like for the listeners to hear isolated taps rather than a song. This is the Curse of Knowledge. Once we know something, we find it hard to imagine what it was like not to know it. Our knowledge has “cursed” us. And it becomes difficult for us to share our knowledge with others, because we can’t readily re-create our listeners’ state of mind.”
This brings up the question, well then how do we communicate anything? Again, I know that it is not in showing then how much you know. If anything that fronts an attitude of arrogance.

I am not saying this is the way to do it, but might I suggest a relational approach to communication. Instead of showing people how much we know maybe we bring them along a similar process that we went through to get where we are. One of my new friends and mentors in Washington DC, Heather Zempel always encourages people to be tour guides rather than travel agents. A tour guide goes with you everywhere, taking you to and talking you through each place, experiencing it with you. A travel agent sits in comfort and ease dictating what you should see and experience while never having done it themselves. They will show you their knowledge but may not help you to get where they are.

We cannot assume that people are in the same place that we are in any arena of life. We must get to know people first and learn to communicate relationally.

Let me know what you think!

THE GWINNETT CHRISTIAN COUNSELING CENTER, INC.

THOMAS JOHNSON — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:24:49 +0000

We are a faith-based counseling center offering mental health & psychological relationship analysis and therapeutic treatment for emotional trauma such as separation, divorce, addiction, finances, grief, anger, violence, depression, etc. Also specialize in premarital and blended family counseling. You can always find us at 770-963-7472 or www.upglad.com

Summer Project time!

rylanreed — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:56:02 +0000

There were two summer projects that came to my side of South Africa, meaning Pretoria and JoBurg. If you don’t know what a summer project is; it’s a time frame of one month to three months in which students from all around the country that are involved in Campus Crusade get to spend a summer either over seas (which is the one month) or Stateside (which is the three months). Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to work with the group that came to Pretoria, from the GPI Region of Crusade, which is where I am from. I did get to share with them and my co-STINTer Stacey, about the culture that is here in South Africa. Just to tell you, it’s a lot like the South in America, people calling themselves “Christians” but not really living their lives for Christ.

I was able to have the privilege of staffing the JoBurg summer project, with the four other STINTers that work along side me here in Pretoria/JoBurg. The summer project ran from the 15th of July to the 15th of August, and was a really great change up to our schedule as STINTers. 11 students from the Southwest region of America, mostly California, but some were from other states; Indiana, Montana, Texas. We worked on Kings-way campus, the University of Johannesburg’s main campus, half of the month and then traded off with the other half in community service work.

There were three guys that came on project; Nathan, Travis and Tom, whom I was able to disciple from the four and a half weeks they were in South Africa. It was a privilege to be able to spend time with each guy, and hangout with all of them when there was not much to do. It was great to see each of them grow in their own way, learning from mistakes and sin, but also teaching those around them. I definitely learned a lot from each of them as I am sure that they learned some from me.

There were a could of activities that we tried to do on campus. Both were successful, but one more the way that we thought it would have gone. We decided to do a Soularium outreach (54 pictures or so depicting certain areas of life, using questions and pictures to see where students are at spiritually) one of the days on campus, but not in the simple way of sitting down and going through it with some students. We played out a couple of the pictures and had some taped on boards that were set on a couple of tables, so students could take the survey as quick as they wanted to. The summer project students really enjoyed the outreach and performing some of the pictures. We had a great turnout with the students that came up and filled out the survey; and really helped increase in the students that came to the weekly meetings.

The other big activity we did involved a movie and big screen, or so we thought. On campus at UJ, there is a big screen TV on the green space right outside of the student center. We figured and planned to play Amazing Grace and give out free hot chocolate one night, and after the movie have a little talk and comment cards for the students there, Up to the day we were going to show the movie on, we thought things were set and ready to go. That day, we figured out that there was something that didn’t happen, and so instead of showing the movie like we wanted to, we decided to just play some pickup games and get to know the students that came. Over all that night we better than we thought it could have and definitely built up a rapport with us and the students.

As the STINT team has realized over the past few months, South Africa and Africa as a whole is very much more relational than in the states. As I conversed with the three guys on project, I started to see them even leaning to share the gospel in a rationalistic kind of way, which I was all for. It was good to see the guys fit into what they felt comfortable doing, not to say that being out of your comfort is bad because that is when God stretches you and builds your character, but their hearts really showed during the times of interaction with some of the students.

It was definitely an enjoyable month!

Guys are Jerks

leetomlin — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:36:54 +0000

Last night I spoke about sexual purity to the teenagers. It was really fun, I made it as uncomfortable as possible! They loved it! During one of my points I spoke about what guys should avoid (porn, harlots, sexual TV shows…), and then I talked about what girls should avoid… Guys.

I was obviously exaggerating, and I went on to explain that they should avoid certain kinds of guys (the kind who practice no self discipline when it comes to controlling their sexual passions) I explained that only a few guys struggle with sexual immorality. For the rest, there is no struggle at all, they just do it. (pun intended)

I am going to look around today through scripture and through some good blogs to find some keys that will help us men to to be the leaders, the role models, the influencers, the Godly fathers, the Christ like husbands, that God created us to be. I will post my findings tomorrow. As I am looking around, if you think of any great keys or pointers please add them in the comment section below. I will add my favorites to the post tomorrow.

God gave us a desire and a passion for greatness, why do we settle for less?

Retooling Lady Gaga As Christians

v02468 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:14:34 +0000

Dear Lady Gaga,

You produced a song called, “Poker Face” back in 2008. While most of the world may have been aware of this I found out tonight that the main idea behind the song is bisexuality. Apparently you had thoughts about other women while with men, and so wrote the song, “Poker Face” to express the masks or shadows each of us take on at certain times. I had never known this song intent, and while it may be obvious from the lyrics obviously did not think through them significantly. Frankly it doesn’t change how I hear or appropriate your song either.

I do admit that I tend to be a sucker for “pop” music. Danceable beats, techno roots, electronica – these genres tend to be popular with IT people; especially as background music. They help focus the mind to concentrate and set a pace to analyze problems. (Yes, I work IT for a living) Besides the beats and style however, I appreciated the concept of a “Poker Face” being valid in many life situations. There are benefits to an independent society, but I fear that we often end up seeing life as a poker match instead of seeing a real possibility of union and intimate supportive relationships.

This concept is what caused me to comment recently on facebook that sometimes maybe the Borg have it right. While there is much terror in the tyranny of forced union and group-think, the Borg have what humanity have lost: The Borg have a real community where people know each others thoughts and sacrifice themselves for their brothers and sisters. Poker may save us face before others in a haughty individualistic society, but we are a communal and relational people and we can’t survive by being completely independent.

So Lady Gaga, I appreciate the effort you put into creating the song “Poker Face”, and I will be enjoying it for reasons other than the story or message you intended. As a Christian, we retool the things of this world to motivate and guide us into honest worship. The building blocks may be songs such as “Poker Face”, but only the divine commentary of life – the Bible – can provide the associations that grant eternal props.

Sincerely,

Andrew Vogel

IV - Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating

Aloysius — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:46:54 +0000

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I’m trying to be more relevant this time, this might get boring.

If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it.

For a relationship to even begin, there must be opportunity for contact, as described by the Relational Formation and Development theory. (Proximity) I’m going to use the Knapp Model of Relational Development to show how the relationship of Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) develops. Oh joy!

A man awakes dishevelled and impulsively, he skips work, heading instead to the shore. (Opportunity) On a chilly February day, a woman in orange, hair dyed blue, chats him up, she’s Clementine and the man’s Joel, shy and sad. By day’s end, he starts developing a liking for her. During the Initiation stage, it is the coming together of two individuals, constantly screening the opposite and Joel clearly displays this when him being very cautious and very conscious of his self-presentation. There’s also a slight crossing of the Experimentation stage – small talk on the train.

The next night she takes him to the frozen Charles River. After, he drops her off; she asks to sleep at his place. In this scene, Experimentation (Stage 2), the couple starts to disclose more about themselves to each other over the phone and by the river. There is also Intensification (Stage 3) with the increased commitment to each other and wanting to share their personal spaces when Clementine asks to sleep at Joel’s place.

I’m going to skip some parts now, it might get a little confusing, ask me for the show if you’re really interested.

Here’s a short write-up to ease the transition.

Joel is stunned to discover that his girlfriend Clementine has had her memories of their tumultuous relationship erased. Out of desperation, he contracts the inventor of the process, Dr. Howard Mierzwaik, to have Clementine removed from his own memory. But as Joel’s memories progressively disappear, he begins to rediscover their earlier passion. From deep within the recesses of his brain, Joel attempts to escape the procedure.

Now these scenes are in Joel’s memory.

The coming apart of the relationship based on Knapp’s Model of Relational Development are as follow – Differentiating (Communication and interaction marked by overt conflict), Circumscribing (Shrinking of relational interest and commitment), Stagnation (Alienation), Avoiding (Withdrawing physically and emotionally) and finally Termination (The breakup).

The point where Clementine decided to erase all her memory of her relationship with Joel would probably be at the Differentiating stage when they were constantly bickering and being the impulsive person she is, she went ahead with the procedure.

Recap.

Coming Together

Stage 1: Initiating

Stage 2: Experimenting

Stage 3: Intensifying

Stage 4: Integrating

Stage 5: Bonding

Coming apart

Stage 6: Differentiating

Stage 7: Circumscribing

Stage 8: Stagnating

Stage 9: Avoiding

Stage 10: Terminating

The stages are not linear though. As seen in this movie, Stages 4 (The “We are together” whooptydoo-stage) and 5 (Engagement/Marriage) are skipped. There wasn’t really a coming together of the couple and they were already at the coming apart stages.

Fret not; relationships do not always end at the Terminating stage. Ha, relieved? Relationships can regress or proceed through the stages, even skipping some.

Do you agree that relationships proceed through these stages? How would you create your opportunities say if you believe in the proximity concept? Which stage would you then realise that you’re in love? Love or Lust?

Whew. Hope you enjoyed this one.

Source: http://www.eternalsunshine.com/

Prodigal Son

leetomlin — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:18:13 +0000

Today I was reminded of potentially the best picture of true repentance in the Bible. I was taken to the story of the prodigal son.

You all know the story, so I will not take the time to go into all of the details. Instead I will focus on the issue of true repentance on the prodigal sons part.

When the Prodigal son came home from his wild ride, he came back saying this: “I am not worthy to be called your son, so I beg you, please make me your servant”

True Repentance can be seen in 3 ways in this story:

1. The prodigal changed his direction
- if we are truley repentant then we too will change directions turning away from our sin. After all, that is what repent means.

2. The prodigal was broken over his sin
-the faster we become broken over our sin, the faster our hearts will soften to the voice of God. We must beg God to keep us broken over our sin.

3. The prodigal was completely humble
- we have no grounds to turn from sin “if…” We have no authority to do what’s right “if they do”. We must acknowledge our sin, take full responsibility and maintain an honest view regarding our sin. We must also remind ourselves of how stupid we are when we allow lust to conceive in our hearts and turn into sin.

For us to say I am sorry if you are sorry, is NOT true repentance. Think about that.

Thomas Hirschhorn: It's Burning Everywhere

mar — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:03:02 +0000

At Dundee Contemporary Arts thru Nov 29

The Power of Presence in a Social Media World

rastrother — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:15:43 +0000

Its been said that we live in an age of connectivity.

And social media has now grown to the point of being labeled a revolution.

But as connected as we sometimes feel to others through blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Posterous, and many other social media applications, I have found that there is much more power in being present with people.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

As a pastor, I enjoy opportunities to visit with people. These are opportunities to be in a family’s home or meet up with someone for coffee before work—for no other reason than to talk with them, listen to them, and pray for them.

I had an opportunity recently to be with a couple in their home and listen as they described their fear of some upcoming changes in their lives. I heard their stories, saw their tears and anxiety, and honestly just sat there without saying a whole lot.

There are times when your words really won’t help, sort of like Job’s friends in the Bible. But that visit with this couple was such a powerful time for me just to embrace them and pray with them. They seemed to really appreciate it, so the time proved to be beneficial for all of us.

Social media applications have allowed us to connect with people we would have never connected with, influence more people than we could ever influence, and have opportunities to share the gospel with people who we would have never been able to share with. But having a personal experience of being with someone and God blessing that time to bring powerful unity and comfort—that’s amazing connectivity.

I am not attempting here to condemn social media in any way. There certainly are benefits to those methods of communication. My fear is that some people (especially ministry leaders), because of ease, will spend more time on computers and phones connecting with people than being present with people.

Let’s not forget the relational model of ministry that Jesus showed us—simply being with people and letting our lives illustrate holiness to them.

Building Social Capital

kaushikonweb — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:57:04 +0000

We introduced the concept of “Social Capital” in organisations which is necessary for teams to come together and work effectively. Right from the start of my career at Infosys, I have seen the company sponsoring project parties. I would be dismayed to see people dropping off in the last minute or reluctant to go. After the party, I usually found it so much easier to drop by a colleague, share a joke and laugh which would in turn would lead to greater understanding and cooperation. This is the essence of building social capital – informal gatherings allows some aspects of your work place spill into non-work leading to greater cohesiveness among members.

However, one tends to miss out on such relationship building exercises in a virtual context. There are hardly any face-to-face meeting that facilitates personal conversation and discovery of mutual interests.

Another way of building social capital in organisations is through participation in clubs and communities. Infosys has encouraged such communities where people can explore their areas of interest, hobbies or engage in philanthropy. Such communities provide touch-points for employees to connect face-to-face with fellow team-mates or network with people from other units in informal fashion. It gives people strong sense of purpose and fosters cooperation.

Robert Putnam, one of the seminal thinkers of 20th century mentions in his book Bowling Alone, “..Social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” In this sense, having interaction in community setting helps people commit to each other and create a sense of belonging. Myself having been part of such community called Toastmasters in Infosys have reaped rich benefits. Even today it is so very easy for me to start a conversation with a stranger (also a Toastmaster) and establish a rapport and sense of bonding in a short time.

Hence, we can say that building social capital is equivalent to establishing high level of trust. So, how does trust get established in virtual teams?

On the structural aspect of social dimension, ties are considered important for social capital (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Ties depend on duration, intensity and reciprocity of interactions (Striukova and Rayna, 2008). In a virtual context, greater the repetition of interaction, stronger the ties. When in pre-sales virtual teams, it was easier for me to accomplish the task at hand with people with whom I have had interactions earlier.

Relational social dimension concerns establishing the relationship to get access to resources (Striukova and Rayna, 2008). The authors argue that reputation and credibility built through work performance in virtual teams can help build trust and relationships.

Cognitive dimensions come into play when there is shared vision and common understanding of collective goals.

I have been working in Social Commerce Business Scenarios virtual teams for the last 6 months. Over a period of time, I have established ties (structural) with different people through repeated interaction. I have built trust (relational) by coming up with effective scenarios that addresses customer issues effectively. All this was possible because we have a common understanding of the goals and shared vision for the team (cognitive). Hence, all three dimensions of social capital help each other (Striukova and Rayna, 2008).

Fostering durable virtual networks of interest in any particular domain could be another way of building trust (Prusak & Cohen, 2001). Example, having a virtual community of Java enthusiasts within an organisation who come up with new tools and ideas for solving known issues. Through discussion forums, chat rooms, virtual cafe’s people can get to know one another and accomplish task. Employees enjoy the satisfaction from such group membership and relish following their passions in communities of practice.

Today, at Infosys such virtual communities are yet to be established and need to be supported by social media technology to help developing structural, relational and cognitive social capital among virtual team mates. =============================================================== Strikova, L. and Rayna, T. (2008) ‘The role of social capital in virtual teams and organisations: corporate value creation’ Int. J. Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2008. Prusak, L. and Cohen, D. (2001) ‘How to Invest in Social Capital’ Harvard Business Review

Some notes from Bill Viola panel

mar — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:57:54 +0000

Here are some notes I took at the panel discussion in Doe Library, UC Berkeley Tuesday afternoon:
Each panel member reacted to Viola’s work followed by general discussion and audience questions.
Greg Niemeyer: opened with a reference to embodiment by holding up a small reddish-brown, cloth-covered first edition book of Pascal writings (1670) and reading a passage about the void between infinity and nothingness. On Viola’s work: focused in time, build up to miracle. Quoting Viola from last night: “A miracle is about forgiveness.” “Artists detoxify things.”
Alva Noë: Says perception is not something in us, it is something we achieve. We can always learn new degrees of awareness/sensation. Describes experiencing a Viola piece for the first time in NY – the idea that sometimes you come across a work of art and you don’t get it. It is closed to you. For him it was revealed in time as he discussed it with the friend who was there with him. The work reveals itself through change in the viewer (transformation) shared in conversation. The purpose of art (and also philosophy) is to provide an opportunity for the process of bringing the world into focus actively – for consciousness. Finally Noe has an issue with a quote from Viola the previous night, “Being alone is the ground zero of being…” Noë says we are never alone. We are always already in a community.
Viola: Video is a modeling of ideas – it is not material. On being alone: he quotes Da Vinci: “If you are alone you belong entirely to yourself. If you are accompanied by even one companion you belong only half to yourself…”
Noë: Socratic dialog as transformation. The space of dialogue is essential to working art. Think of art “not as the act of a hero but a consciousness that comes out of a dialogue.”