John @ Chrystal Cathedral

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:47 am

Yes, telling people they are sinners in the hands of an angry God is only counter-productive to evangelism if the goal of evangelism is to line your pockets with beaucoup de cash. Schuller also strongly supports the "business church" model, which is very much antithetical to what a church is supposed to be. It amazes me that people like Douglas Wilson and R.C. Sproul Jr. are hounded as heretics (how DARE you try to restore Scriptural truth!), but guys like Schuller and Osteen get television programs.

sue d. · Post by **sue d.** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:18 am

The appearance at the Cathedral was set up by John's publicity company... and no - - he's not DESPERATE or anything like that. In fact, he has sung there before.

As far as the quote mentioned, I think the keywords are "the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy."

Perhaps Schuller is talking about the method of some 'fire & brimstone' preachers, who calls everyone on the carpet, pointing fingers.

Yes, Peter did this on Pentecost, Jesus did that with the Pharisees, but Jesus did NOT do that with the woman caught in adultery, nor the lady at the well in Samaria.

It all depends on the circumstances what method should be used to confront sin.

MAYBE that is what Schuller is referring to in this quote - you would not use that 'fire & brimstone' method with the adulterous woman. She would be crushed and the attempt to show her Christ would be useless.

Not having read any of his material, I'm just guessing. Just trying to give another interpretation of what he MIGHT have meant, as I read that stand-alone quote with no background to go with it.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:41 am

Here is the more full quote, which is much more clear on Schuller's heretical stance:

[quote]â€œI donâ€™t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition. Classical reformed theology has erred in its insistence that theology be God centered not man centered.â€

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:19 am

I don't know that much about Schuller; I tend to be rather suspicious of TV evangelists in general, there's too much potential there for everything to become about money no matter what, and not enough accountability for what they're doing.

You don't have to agree with or condone someone's beliefs to minister to them. Good heavens, if that were the case, nobody would be hearing the Gospel. It's a good opportunity for John to minister and for people to hear the truth.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:22 am

Shell wrote:You don't have to agree with or condone someone's beliefs to minister to them. Good heavens, if that were the case, nobody would be hearing the Gospel. It's a good opportunity for John to minister and for people to hear the truth.

I doubt anyone would disagree with this, but the issue is that John went on Schuller's show. He may have been ministering to people, but the image that gives is that John agrees with Schuller's beliefs, whether that is fair or not.

gman · Post by **gman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:45 am

that particular quote hinges on what he believes about the depravity of man. It sounds like he leans toward rejecting the depravity of man. You have to do a whole lot of bending and twisting to get there.

GMan

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:54 am

separateunion wrote:
Shell wrote:You don't have to agree with or condone someone's beliefs to minister to them. Good heavens, if that were the case, nobody would be hearing the Gospel. It's a good opportunity for John to minister and for people to hear the truth.
I doubt anyone would disagree with this, but the issue is that John went on Schuller's show. He may have been ministering to people, but the image that gives is that John agrees with Schuller's beliefs, whether that is fair or not.

This is why I won't give my time or money to organizations(charities etc. etc.) because I might agree with somethings they support like Habitat for Humanity, but there is always either a gray or black area they support that I do not agree with. This also goes with Churches of any sort. I support my local church but will not support their conventions or things as such because I'm not sure where my effort or money has gone.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:14 pm

It is definitely good to give to efforts that are more direct about where your money is going, but I think we can sometimes become TOO purist about avoiding shopping at stores or giving to charity. I may not agree with some of the things Habitat for Humanity supports, but should that stop me from giving my time to help build a house for a homeless family?

There's a difference between that and going on a radio program or TV show with a host or figurehead whose views are out there. Is the homeless family and those who see your actions going to say, "ah, he's supporting Habitat for Humanity! Sinner!" or are they going to think "how nice of him to help out a homeless family"? The unfortunate fact of the matter is, when you go on a TV show with a heretic, people are going to start questioning what you believe, and while that may be not fair, it's the way it is.

charl · Post by **charl** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:45 pm

Haha. Ah.

Robert Schuller is a bizarre guy. He actually comes from a Reformed background, knows the doctrines quite well and when with others has affirmed "yes that's what the church teaches, but I'd never say that". He flat out refuses to preach any negative elements in Christianity for fear of turning people off. He makes no differentiation between the harsh fundamentalist and an articulation of the orthodox position of depravity. What he has forgotten is that the cross is an offence. It just is.

John doesn't seem to be too discriminating in getting an audience and that can be seen as both good and bad. Hey the people who watch the Hour of Power need someone to preach the gospel to them.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:50 pm

charl wrote:Hey the people who watch the Hour of Power need someone to preach the gospel to them.

I nominate...you!

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:49 am

Remember that Simpsons episode where Homer, dangling nude from a hot air balloon, is dragged across the roof of the Crystal Cathedral, and Schuller tells his congregation to bow their heads and focus their eyes on "God's Floor?"

That's awesome.

BForm · Post by **BForm** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:10 pm

Do your homework people. Robet Schuller IS a heretic. There is no taking these quotes out of context. They clearly represent what he has been teaching for several decades. There is a long list of Orthodox Christian theologians that have sent up a warning about this man's teaching. For goodness sake even Rick Warren, the most inclusivist orthodox evangelical there is, has said this man's theology is not biblical.

As far as an outreach opportunity, the modern church seems to have forgotten that both the message and the method must honor God. If not, we could solve the problem of not getting men in church by having the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders serve communion. When John stands on stage as a brother to Robert Schuller, and does not clearly distinguish the truth from error, God is dishonored. The Holy Spirit is not so weak that he needs us to stand in "fellowship" with enemies of the gospel in order to get people to listen to us.

I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt John was able to articulate a very clear presentation of the gospel that included man's desparate condition before God and how the cross meets that need. Schuller has long ago rejected the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Schuller is in the group that believes that to be "divine child abuse". On the other hand, John's message of "We're on the winning team" would fit very nicely with the Schuller's, as long as that didn't mean that the winning team was only made up of those who have put their faith in the sacrifice that was made on their behalf on the cross.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:19 pm

Calm down, BForm, most of us are on board with you. Sue is taking a more careful approach because of her association with John. You can't fault her for that.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:23 pm

I don't know John personally, but all indications point to him having intention to show people Jesus, and not Schuller screwballery.

He went to India. He didn't preach Brahman. As far as I know. I wasn't with him every second. We'll have to check the tape. TrodLAN?

BeReady · Post by **BeReady** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:17 am

I agree that Schuller appears to be a heretic. But we all know that John is on target with the Gospel. Maybe through John's appearance someone will check out his music or website and hear the authentic Gospel of Christ. Isn't that ultimately what John is about? What's the difference between John appearing on Schuller or on TBN? Some of the stuff on TBN is worse than anything Schuller has ever said. Yet, both Charles Stanley and Billy Graham air television programs on TBN. Just a thought.

The Petra Zone

John @ Chrystal Cathedral

quote

It's Just Wrong!

Who is online