Does the Church Growth Movement have New Age Connections? Form a flow chart featured on this site, http://www.crmspokane.org/cgm_chart.htm, see how Fuller Theological Seminary promotes New Age teachings in their Church Growth Institute. You Decide!

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2002

Answers

Phil;

I'm sorry but that website to me is a load of bull (stronger language came to mind). There are church growth books and business strategy books. A rational person can see that dealing with other persons is not exactly covered indepth for every occasion or incident by the Word of God. The Word of God is all truth. But does that make every writer outside of the inspired writers, brain cramped nitwits or pond scum?

I think a prudent person can see that the One minute Manager can work well in business and some of its idealogy can work in the church. What is wrong with that? I have read the book, I have the book and it is certainly not anti scripture. So where's the beef?

I have also read, "In Search of Excellence." I don't remember all the book, but some of its stories, in particular Post-It notes, was an interesting read. And if there was one thing I learned is that if someone feels strong enough about doing a ministry, they should be encouraged to try. Where is there anti-scriptural bias in that?

Phil, don't be an alarmist. Jimmy Swaggert in the mid 80's wrote in Evangel magazine, that higher education, psychology and music were all anathema. He raised quite an stink about it. Yet, it is ok as long as it was his music and his school. He was just ringing an alarm.

Yes, we have to watch out for the devil, he acts like an angel of light. But we are also to be shrewd in this world and as you say there are no new ideas. So if some idea makes sense to me, and it helps me to relate to people, I don't think it new age or sinful. God gave me a brain, I have to use it. Dr W. Edwards Deming wrote for quality assurance purposes, employers needed to drive out fear. He meant that the employee should be totally informed of all that he is and is not responsible for, so he or she can do the best job possible. Hmmm, that could be good for training workers. He also wrote about how employers would tell their workers they needed to increase productivity over the previous year. Besides saying work harder, there was no information on how? Sounds like the church, we tell people to go win souls, pray, minister to others, etc. and we don't teach them how. Think about brother.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

Bill,

I am sincerely sorry that you feel that way. Honestly, I expected much more of you, but I see that you must insist on using foul language to make your point. Have it your way then.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

Phil;

You amaze me at times with your accusations. Take a step back! Saying something is a load of bull - is foul language? What originally came to mind was the word crap - I didn't think it appropriate for this board. That is as strong as it gets with me. So think about it, did I use foul language, or are you being an alarmist and jumping to conclusions once again!!!!

And my points speak for themselves. I see where you have intelligently discussed the issues I brought to light. Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake, YOU DID NOT!!!! Try it sometime Phil, deal with an issue and with dignity and regard. Remember it is ok to disagree on vast variety of issues because God gave us wonderful minds to think and have our own points of view.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

Well Bill, it is quite evident (by your own admission) that your mind is fold of whichever word you choose to use. Remember, evil begins in the heart of the individual and comes flowing out of the mouth. Have I made a false accusation? Hardly!

Am I an alarmist? You pull no punches when you compare me with the womanizing Swaggert. That is a low blow if there ever was one – I am truly offended by it! If you truly have a brain, like you claim, than at least refrain from such blatant ad hominem rhetoric!

It is typical of the debased mind to take the secular success model and apply to the church. That is exactly what has gotten us into so much trouble in the past and continues to undermine the church today. The corporate structure of private enterprise is indiscriminately applied to the church, at the expense of almost every NT principle governing the Body of Christ.

However, I see that I am wasting my time with you and other like- minded fellows. I don’t see any of the other so- called “conservatives” even taking the time to respond to this thread. Maybe they are not as “conservative” as they claim.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2002

Phil;

Has it ever occured to you, that you don't want to dialogue, you want to monologue. You do not humble yourself, your advocate yourself as high authority. More than one has expressed that to me. IF you want people to respond to you, then back off. Have some humility. Accept that some people have other ideas, and if they are not against the Bible, they are not wrong, just different.

As for comparing you to Swaggert, I am dealing with one aspect of his character and I made it clear with my examples. Again you have jumped to a conclusion. BACK OFF!! The only issue is that you act as an alarmist. Only issues that you are against you sound the alarm. Rarely do you try to see anyone else's point of view. In that way, you are like Swaggert. No other meaning was intended. Maybe someone has something to tell you. Remember I wrote you and said I am saying this out of Christian love for you. You totally ignored it. So how can anyone reason with you, if you wont reason, and take others seriously?

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2002

Bill,

I don’t know what your definition of dialogue is, but my dictionary merely states that it is “a conversation between two persons”. Since this has already taken place in this thread, your accusations are just another attempt of yours to gain an upper hand in the discussion. Of course, I believe I know what you mean by “dialogue” and “humility”. What you mean is COMPROMISE, pure and simple. Those who accuse others of not being humble (at least not enough for them), are usually the same folk that are compromising the most.

Again, since you are a man without an argument (just like your liberal Democrat counterparts) you continue to resort to ad hominem of the worst order, i.e. comparing me to other so-called “alarmists”. The fact is that you are entirely incapable of counter-argument so all you do is whine a lot.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2002

Phil:

This is what I wrote: Has it ever occured to you, that you don't want to dialogue, you want to monologue. You do not humble yourself, your advocate yourself as high authority. More than one has expressed that to me. IF you want people to respond to you, then back off. Have some humility. Accept that some people have other ideas, and if they are not against the Bible, they are not wrong, just different.

This is what I meant: YOu rarely if ever, respond to the issue with your thoughts. Generally you attack the person as liberal, whiner, ad nauseum. That is pure monlogue. YOur attitude is I accept only what I write.

Dialogue is an exchange of thoughts and ideas between 2 or more people. There is no exchange with you. This is how it works. You throw your alarm out there. Someone disagrees and then you label that person with your nom du jor.

When I say have some humility I meant respect others opinions. If that was not clear, I say it now. Show some respect for others when the give an opinion. You dont have to agree with it. Just be a Christian and say I disagree, sans the labeling and name calling.

If you want a friend you have to be a friend. If you want people to resond you have to respect their ideas. And again I state, if the idea is not against the Bible it is not wrong, just different. YOu have a hard time accepting people with a differening opinion and so you resort to name calling. How childish is that?

PS - HOw could you possibly know my political preferences and concerns? That was a very immature attack.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2002

Phil;

Here again is another chance for you to behave as a mature Christian. This is my original post pared down to just the questions I asked. For ONCE, please, answer the questions that you are asked.

1) A rational person can see that dealing with other persons is not exactly covered indepth for every occasion or incident by the Word of God. The Word of God is all truth. But does that make every writer outside of the inspired writers, brain cramped nitwits or pond scum?

2) I think a prudent person can see that the One minute Manager can work well in business and some of its idealogy can work in the church. What is wrong with that? I have read the book, I have the book and it is certainly not anti scripture. So where's the beef?

3)I have also read, "In Search of Excellence." And if there was one thing I learned is that if someone feels strong enough about doing a ministry, they should be encouraged to try. Where is there anti- scriptural bias in that?

Please stick to the point of each question and tell me where there is true wrong, if in fact there is.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2002