John @ Chrystal Cathedral

[sue d.]

I would expect the host church to check out everyone they invite in; to do otherwise would be careless on their part - and they may be in for a surprise if they're not familiar with the speaker's stance.

But there's a difference on the flip side: your choir is going out as a representative of your CHURCH. So if you want to be very discerning and selective about where you go because you're representing a larger church body, you have the right to do that. The difference here is that John sings for a living, plus he is going out as an individual, not as a representative of a church.

When booking a date, I naturally LOOK at the church's website, to see WHO they are and what they are about; of course! I never said I didn't. But to delve into all their beliefs or the pastor's belief on every subject - no. I don't do that. Some churches are non-denominational and unless they say specifically on their site that they believe this and that - I would not be able to tell, outside of asking the contact person outright.

Churches who are hosting a concert are first of all wanting MUSIC, not preaching. But some talking/speaking/preaching naturally goes along with it and they all realize that. Churches are wanting the Gospel preached in all its simplicity - John is fully aware of all the many differences that occur between denominations and he takes great care to keep the message as simple and basic as possible.

He builds his talk on the SIMILARITIES, not the differences.

Let me ask you this:
Since John's a performer who plays in a wide variety of venues and churches, it's virtually impossible that what he personally believes will match up with every church that invites him.

WHERE would you draw the line?

As a Protestant, he doesn't believe in praying to Mary. Should he NEVER go into a Catholic church if invited?

[BForm]

I have listened to John's testimony and song, but have yet to listen to the rest of the service. Here's the problem with trying to evagelize in a setting like this. John did use the words "saved" and also referenced having his guilt removed. Now, I'm pretty confident that, in saying this, John meant that God had saved him from God's own wrath by substituting Christ's sacrifice, and that the removal of guilt happened because the debt was paid. However, those who have been watching, listening to and reading Schuller will likely have a very different interpretation. The Schullers say when we are "saved" it means saved from our low self esteem that leads us into distructive behaviour. The removal of guilt is not the removal of God's wrath but only the feelings of guilt associated with living below our "possibilities". So, in reality, John said nothing that the Schullers couldn't affirm.

This is why many theologians are hesitant to refer to themselves as evangelicals any longer. In our culture the term has lost it's meaning and has begun to represent both orthodox and heretical churches. In these days we have to be crystal (no pun intended) clear as to what we are saying when we testify to what Christ has done.

Please trust me when I say that I'm not trying to be inflammatory with this, but what John gave was "his personal testimony" and not the gospel itself. If anyone didn't already understand the truth of what Christ had done on the cross they probably didn't get it from what John said. Given the teaching they were sitting under, they were likely to interpret John as saying that God saved me from my destructive behavior, removed my feelings of guilt and set me on the path to a more "successful" life as a big name Christian artist.

This is why it is so important to learn the distinction between a "personal testimony" and witnessing (testifying) to the work of Christ on the cross. Many people give a personal testimony (i.e. God made me a better husband, freed me from drugs, healed me of a disease), but never clearly testify to what Christ accomplished eternally on the cross. This leads to false converts coming to Christ solely for what he can provide temporally. (i.e. God has wonderful plan for your life, will get you a better job, improve your love life, etc., etc.) Personally, I believe this is precisely why the church in North America is so anemic today.

[BForm]

That's really funny. This system wouldn't allow me to use the S E _ word for lovin, but replaced it with the word chess. Improve your chess life? Maybe God just wanted to lighten up the discussion a little.

[BForm]

But there's a difference on the flip side: your choir is going out as a representative of your CHURCH. So if you want to be very discerning and selective about where you go because you're representing a larger church body, you have the right to do that. The difference here is that John sings for a living, plus he is going out as an individual, not as a representative of a church.

Sue, I'm sure you and John would agree that he is going out, not just as a performer, but as a representative of the true and living God. Would he not feel that way?

He builds his talk on the SIMILARITIES, not the differences.

Yes, and there are many lower level similarities between orthodox Christianity and the heretical imposters. But what fellowship does light have with darkness?

Let me ask you this:
Since John's a performer who plays in a wide variety of venues and churches, it's virtually impossible that what he personally believes will match up with every church that invites him.

WHERE would you draw the line?

The difference lies in the historical definition of heresy. Any teaching that denies the person and work of the Godhead is heretical. The Trinity, the cross, the resurrection, the fully man/fully God person of Christ, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and future hope of the believer all fall in that category. Whether or not we baptize infants, sing hymns or contemporary music, use grape juice or wine, have our women wear hats or blue jeans, etc., etc., is really not the main issue. They may be concerns but they don't fall into the category of heresy.

[sue d.]

The Schuller's, being consistant in their pluralistic views, are known to bring just about anyone in that will be interesting

I didn't know that. Perhaps McCain Publicity (who booked this) did not know either. I can't speak for them.

To say that they should be commended for bringing John in when other churches have failed (?) to do so, is to assume that bringing in major Christian acts for worship is a wise use of funds and something churches should feel ashamed to not have done.

Not exactly... it's to say that this church went ahead and did it, while others call me, talk about it, email back & forth about, it - then never move forward or do anything about it (for whatever reason).

... I would have to agree when I know you can build a church in a third world country and pay the pastor's salary for two years on what it costs to do even a small ($2k to $4k) concert

We could argue that one forever... 'why drive a (insert your favorite vehicle) when you could donate that money to missions and drive a 1994 beater that will get you where you want to go just as well?'

Yes, John gave a shortened version of his personal testimony, and had he been invited to actually 'preach' or say more, you bet the folks would have heard the full Gospel.

But he was invited to sing only one song.

[cndfogie]

BForm--"If it all just "comes down to" getting the message out then why not book a tour with Anton Lavey, founder of the church of satan?"

Kind of hard to do that when Lavey has been dead since 97.

[BForm]

[quote="sue d] Yes, John gave a shortened version of his personal testimony, and had he been invited to actually 'preach' or say more, you bet the folks would have heard the full Gospel.

But he was invited to sing only one song.[/quote]

And what a great song it was and I hope God uses it to touch lives. I really do love that song and hope to get up the courage to sing it myself in church one day. In spite of the fact that I believe John shouldn't continue to perform in circumstances like this, I still believe that God uses even our flawed efforts. I remember hearing J.I. Packer once say, "God uses a needle of truth in a haystack of error." That, however, is not to say that we shouldn't continually seek to be transformed and grow in our understanding of what honors God.

[BForm]

BForm--"If it all just "comes down to" getting the message out then why not book a tour with Anton Lavey, founder of the church of satan?"

Kind of hard to do that when Lavey has been dead since 97.

Good point. I guess that's why I haven't heard anything about him in years. But I think you get my real point anyway. There are others like him, and other very dangerous associations that could both help us get the gospel out and confuse the message at the same time.

[cndfogie]

Well If God can speak through the mouth of an a** then I guess he can use anything any way he wants to.

[brent]

People, people, people. John is an artist getting paid (which ain't an easy feat) to sing his songs. He got paid, got exposure on TV, probably sold some CDs in the process.

In the context of the last CC show, John was given a platform to tell an abbreviated testimony. He used one word that you will NEVER hear the Schullers use. What was it? "Saved". He said when he was saved, who saved him, that he is a Christian, he demonstrated deliverance. The bible says to be instant in season and out of season. We don't get to pick the "who to." Foller me fellers? John may have been the only REAL saved person to stand on that stage and deliver the goods. AND he got paid for it. Sweet.

Again. The artist can't always pick and choose the audience, the promoter, or the venue. This is true in all music. Everyone does shows that they would rather not do. But ya' gots to pay duh bills baby.

[BForm]

Brent, Brent, Brent. You heretic!!! Just kidding man.

Seriously, I know you are always quick to point out that CCM is a business, and I agree with you. This reminds me of something BJ Thomas (remember him?) said a long time ago when asked about singing his secular and Christian stuff together. He said something to the effect of "some people call themselves Christian entertainers. But I'm just an entertainer that happens to be a Christian."

That's all well and good but that is not how John and Bob have presented themselves for all these years. They have presented themselves as ambassadors for Christ that used music as a tool. In fact, do you remember how Bob Hartman introduced John Lawry on Farewell? He said he was someone who "was a big part of Petra's MINISTRY". Sue can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think John views what he is doing any differently. So as an ambassador of Christ John stepped onto the Schuller's stage and appeared to be in fellowship with them. Again, 2 John 9-11 has meaning to me.

But I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm getting a little tired of the debate now that there is so much to read about Brett Farve. I wish that heretic....wait, I'm getting confused. I mean, I wish that old man would just stay retired and quit toying with the Packer organization. But let's not debate that one. I really don't care either way.

[brent]

CCM is a business but so is Americanized church. They both advertise, secure people to provide goods and services with contracts, pay with money and/or other material goods, evaluate the performance of functions to determine their effectiveness, seek repeatable results, etc, etc. When the people no longer peform, or when they do something that they do not like, they kick the people to the curb. On the flip side, if the people are successful, they are enticed to stay.

Ministry is what we ALL do. Everyone should consider their life a ministry. So we cannot use that and get it mixed up in this conversation. "Oh, John is doing this for ministry." So what? What does that mean?

Jesus and the Apostles went into the synagogs and taught. They did not agree with the Judiism. Judiism did not agree with them. What if Jesus would have used this argument? "Don't represent me anywhere that does not represent me EXACTLY!" Come on. That would mean that we could not "Go ye into all the WORLD..." John went into the world. John was instant. John gave witness. Now, if John is going to give his testimony, should he not give it to the LOST?

"We gotta take this message....Back to the streets!"

[BForm]

Brent, of course ministry is what we all do. Or at least what we SHOULD all do. I never denied that. You were the one that emphasized that John was just an entertainer getting paid to sing a song as if that changes things. I was pointing out that he was also going as an ambassador for Christ as we ALL should whatever we are doing. That should impact everything we do.

And as far as preaching in the synagog and the temple, don't forget what period we are talking about here. This was the transition from the old covenant to the new and salvation was "to the jews first". And let's also not forget how upset the leadership was because Jesus words were clearly confrontational and clearly in contrast to the actions, attitudes and teachings of the religious leadership of the day. The reason He was so controversial was because it was clearly seen that He spoke authoritatively and was confronting the evil of the leadership IN THEIR PRESENCE.

Hey, if John wanted to go on Hour of Power and proclaim that these men are whitewashed tombs that are a cancer to the church, I would be the first to say AMEN! But he didn't. There was no contrast. And concerning the word saved, I have heard the Schuller's use the word, but explaining it very differently than we would. So instead of a contrast, John appeared to be one of their own. This, I believe, is a direct violation of 2 John 9-11

I'm not talking about complete isolation from the world and all that we disagree with. Look at Paul's teaching. His harshest words were reserved for those who claimed to speak for Christ but whose teachings were heretical. 2 John 9-11 is the same. It applies not to all unbelievers but to those who claim to be ambassadors of the true God but whose heretical teachings distort/dishonor the person and work of Christ.

[74CAPethead]

I emailed an Apologist (Gretchen Passantino), who also happens to be a friend of mine, to see what she thought about John singing at the Crystal Cathedral and below is her reply.

For those of you who don’t know who she is, she’s the Director & Co-Founder, Answers In Action. www.answers.org

Regarding John's performance at Robert Schuller's church, my basic answer is that if a Christian whose walk & talk is obviously filled with the Holy Spirit has the opportunity to share the gospel through his gifting, & he uses that opportunity, we should thank God instead of criticizing him. If Schuller is not a heretic, then there is no reason John can't fellowship & perform with him. If Schuller is a heretic, then if John has the chance to preach the true gospel to his congregation, how much more should he have been there!

Now, I have very significant issues with Schuller's teachings, & I don't recommend his church or ministry. However, I do not condemn him, & I know of many, many people who have come to a true knowledge of Jesus Christ through the ministry of the Crystal Cathedral. The older I get, the more I understand that if we built on what we had in common with others instead of always nit picking our differences, we would spread the good news of the kingdom far more. I am not saying that we compromise our faith, or that we do not bring out differences, especially in essential doctrine. But I am saying that we should take advantage of any opportunity to act for God & not shut ourselves out of the many different ways we can minister.

Here is a good article by an old friend of mine, Joe Gudel, on Schuller's theological issues:
The Faulty Gospel of Robert H. Schuller - http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar19.htm
This will give you a good basis for understanding the problems he had theologically.

Nevertheless, John had the chance to perform & share the gospel. How could that be wrong?

Blessings,

Gretchen

[BForm]

What's funny about that statement is that when opening her web site, the first thing I saw was the contrast I was talking about. The main page starts out contrasting Oprah's lies with the truth of salvation in Christ. Is she condemning Oprah? Or merely pointing out error?

I wonder if Gretchen would be willing to get on Oprah and give a very "lowest common denominator" so-called gospel message that Oprah wouldn't find offensive. What good would it be? Would she be willing to do that if she knew she risked having the audience think that the two of them believed the same things, thereby giving the appearance of an endorsement? Somehow I doubt it.

Similar to what I said in a previous post, if John wants to get on the Hour of Power, Gretchen wants to go on Oprah, or any of us wants to go into the marketplace and preach the gospel, we better not just stick to what we all agree on or it won't be the gospel at all. Jesus promised that we would face persecution because we are called to tear down anything that exalts itself over the truth of Christ. The world doesn't like being exposed.

Guys, I really am all ears for another explanation on passages like 2 John 9-11. If it doesn't mean what I think it means, then what does it mean? We don't have the right to just ignore scripture when it doesn't fit with our pragmatic reasoning.

Also, be careful of what we call nitpicking. Fighting over styles of worship music might be nitpicking. If guarding the teaching concerning Christ's atonement is nitpicking, I sure see the Apostles doing a lot of it.