John @ Chrystal Cathedral

[trodLAN]

I will not be watching the video clip or/and be watching anything that has anything to do with the Shuler Hour of Power.

His name is "Schuller".

[charl]

I don't think anyone would argue that Schuller's teaching is inerrant cndfogie. In fact I'm pretty sure of it.

[BForm]

Cndfogie, rather than feel convicted by your emotive argument, I think your tone shows you to be one who quickly gets lost in his own emotions. So you're calling me fool? Nice touch. Perhaps you should read your words again out loud.....into the mirror.

For those of you who think I have claimed to be able to see into John's heart, did I not say "I'm guessing it will appear that....."? How is that pretending to be able to see into one's heart?

I have not yet watched the program because, quite honestly, it's done and it's no longer all that important. The kingdom of God will not rise or fall based on the choices that John Schlitt or any other individual makes.

I do think this discussion is important because it has a lot to do with how the modern church is approaching evangelism. When Jesus percieved that the crowd was following him just for the free bread, He gave them tough theology that scared the false converts away. The modern church, on the other hand, accepts every possible avenue to draw a crowd as being genuine. Communicating the gospel to the world out in the marketplace is something we are all called to do, but it also should always include exposing error.

I am going to watch the broadcast, but I think we should all ask one question. Will the average person watching the show see a contrast between what John believes and what Schuller teaches? Or are they likely to think that the two are truly in fellowship with what they believe? BTW, I don't think we should ask that question for the purspose of condemning John, but as an opportunity to shape our own understanding of what it means to spread God's truth in a way that honors His power and not our own creative methodology.

[charl]

Bform, this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?

[separateunion]

Bform, this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?

...you?

[sue d.]

You know, I was thinking about this in a secular context and this thought came to mind. I am speaking for MYSELF, not John, just so that's understood.

Let's go back a few years to one of the most controversial presidents (when it comes to morality) in our recent times: Bill Clinton.

What if YOU (you = anyone on this thread) were invited to the White House to sing at one of his Presidential galas. You were invited to do one song, you would meet briefly with the President and since this is a rather large event, it would be televised as well.

We all know that Clinton has told numerous half-truths ("I did not inhale"), not to mention outright lies about his affair with Monica L. ("I did not have s__ with that woman"), has extremely questionable morals and on top of that you may or may not agree with his political views.

But you were invited and you have a choice to make: Go to the event, even though you do not agree at all with the President on a personal or moral level or with the Democratic philosophy in general, or stay home. (That is ASSUMING you KNEW about all of Clinton's mishaps and his politcal stance. You may not know about them... not everyone pays attention to ALL the political leaders. Perhaps you really DON'T know about Clinton... perhaps you see this as an excellent opportunity to perform for an important event that many will see).

The question remains:
WOULD YOU OR WOULD YOU NOT GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY?

If you went - would people think you're now a Democrat?
If you went - would people think you're in agreement with Clinton's foreign and domestic policies?
If you went - would people think you too have affairs and lie about them?
If you went - would people think you're in total agreement with Clinton about everything and that you support him in every way?

[brent]

I would go, so that I could go to the oval office, just to see if there really is a combination desk, holding the keys and book.

If Clinton would have invited me, I would have gone, but not shaken his hand. I have my reasons for that. If Bush would have invited me, I would have taken two or three theologians with me to talk some prophecy into that lax methodist head of his.

[BForm]

Sue, I hear your reasoning but I do think it falls short. Everyone knows that the President has been elected by a majority (of electoral votes) and has authority over people of many different political and religious views. Nobody would feel it was necessary to be in agreement with the president in order to be contracted to provide a service at the event. In the life of the church this is completely different. People would expect a Pastor to bring speakers in who reflected his views.

Let me offer another example from scripture and not just my own reasoning. I don't believe Robert Schuller is any less dangerous than the Gnostics of the 1st Century. Both seriously distort the person and work of Jesus Christ. Now listen what John commands:

" Whoever transgresses and DOES NOT ABIDE IN THE DOCTRINES OF CHRIST does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house NOR GREET HIM; for HE WHO GREETS HIM SHARES in his evil deeds." 2 John 9-11

That's pretty strong stuff. But it's appropriate. Robert Schuller claims to speak the truth concerning God. We need to speak out clearly against this kind of false doctrine lest we appear to share in their shame.

[brent]

This is not important, but I would like to know from John (and maybe someone will ask) what it is like to perform in that big freakin' glass barn of a room. Holy crap. I thought that he had stage monitors up there. I can't imagine what the RT60 of that room is (how long it takes a sound wave to come to rest basically). It sounds great with the organ blowing 20Hz. But I can't imagine being up on that stage and being able to hear very well. Sue, will you ask him, or I know another way...

[johnathan]

i actually think this whole thing has gotten way out of hand, who are we to judge? John did his thing and all though our stations got cut off right after he could do his testimony. My parents even watched it and like the other guy who spoke and they are old. They even like John and were dissapointed not to hear him. All i have to say is wow that church actually hosted John and allowed him to be heard all over the world. Has any of your churches allowed him in? Do you want John to not tell his testimony and do what he has been called to do? I aplaud him for going on and doing his thing in whatever venue God has opened up for him. Cause man if I where in his situation I would have quit a long time ago. I have never seen the Crystal Cathedrial be in some kind of crazy scandal. I may be wrong. I think everyone has different ways to preach,are you gonna go out and sing Sandi Patti stuff and let people hate you? Or do you have to sing some certain way? Or do you have to give your testimony in a certain way? Cause Lord help us if we offend some of us. I applaud you once again John and Sue you work so hard to let him get out there,wherever you need to get to. DO IT AT LEAST Someone is using there talents. I for one do not. And I should! I try and I will. that is all I have to say.

[BForm]

Why is it that as soon as someone has a disagreement with what another Christian does the "judge not" passage is thrown in their face. This is the most widely used and widely misunderstood passage in all of scripture. In our day it's quoted far more often than even the "golden rule". People like Barbara Walters, Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O'Donnell love to quote it in an attempt to silence Christians on every front.

I have not judged John. I have not accused him of willful compromise for the purpose of selling records. I have only said that I believe his decision was in error. For those who think I'm being unduly critical, could you please explain to me what 2 John 9-11 means? Does it have meaning or do we just ignore it and stick with the passages we like?

As far as Robert Schuller goes, if it were just a matter of preaching style I would have seen no reason to post as much as I have. But it goes much deeper than that. Take the time to visit the websites I've listed above and see for yourself. Robert Schuller denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ and considers that theology to be akin to "divine child abuse". Yet scripture clearly teaches that Christ came to take our place so that the wrath of God would rest on Him and not us. This is unacceptable to Schuller who believes that Christ's death was merely to show how important and valuable we are and free us from low self esteem.

I love the way John Piper puts it when he says, "When a king dies for his subjects, it says more about the king that in does about his subjects." Yet many so-called Bible teachers have made the gospel about how valuable we are instead of how awesome God's amazing grace and mercy are.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor 10:4-5

I pray that God raises up more Christians who will be willing to do this even though they will pay the price of being called narrowminded, judgmental and arrogant, sometimes even by their own brothers and sisters in Christ.

[executioner]

I"m with Bform on this; The Scriptures that he has put up are right on. I do believe John made an error in judgment with this, but he like us all are human and sins everyday. I don't judge John in anyway I am just stating my opinion, and is just my opinion.
I choose not to watch this program and will not watch this because I do not feel like it is right for me to do so. I will not judge anyone else here for watching I'm just stating how I feel.

[sue d.]

Sue, I hear your reasoning but I do think it falls short..... Nobody would feel it was necessary to be in agreement with the president in order to be contracted to provide a service at the event. ... People would expect a Pastor to bring speakers in who reflected his views.

If that's the case then Schuller & the Crystal Cathedral made a serious error in bringing in John. But since John was brought in primarily to SING and not speak, then this reasoning doesn't quite apply. Yes, John did talk about his life briefly - but that was not the primary reason he was there. He was there to sing one song.

Having heard/read all the talk about Schuller (and I thank you all for showing & proving what you have stated is true) - yes, I do see that he is not in line with what the Bible says. But prior to this I had no idea.

In fact, when I book John in to a church I have no idea about their theology either. Should I be expected to 'check out' every pastor or church? Should John? Granted, the Crys. Cath. is a much higher profile church than most... but as you can see on this forum, not everybody is familiar with their theology. I wasn't familiar... neither was John. But the same argument still applies - should I (or John) be expected to check out every pastor for what he teaches before accepting an invitation? Or just the high-profile ones? (and who defines that?)

All i have to say is wow that church actually hosted John and allowed him to be heard all over the world. Has any of your churches allowed him in?

I will say a resounding AMEN to that! I WISH all your churches would bring him in... call me!

Has anyone asked or tried to host a concert - not necessarily with John, but with any artist? And I'd be really hard pressed to even call what John did at the Cryst. Cath. a concert. It was just one song.

petrafan1 hit the nail on the head with this statement:

"to me it looks like it just came down to this, john was able to go and spread his testimony of what God did for him in his life and also share his music to a wide audience!"

That's exactly what it came down to.

[crossways]

In fact, when I book John in to a church I have no idea about their theology either. Should I be expected to 'check out' every pastor or church? Should John?

Sue!?!!

Yes!

I am the worship leader at my church and I have a band that does dates from time to time. And you bet that anyone who comes into our pulpit has been checked out, whether it is to sing, dance, speak, preach, whatever.

Like wise if I am approached to sing or take my choir to another church, you better bet we are checking it out. Now, if you decide that even though the church or venue may have a difference in belief, maybe it is worthwhile to share despite that fact.

We have played in bars, after prayer and debate, because we decided that God could use the opportunity for his good.

But I think you should be aware of where you are going and what they believe so that you can make informed descisions, and know the risk it may cause to John's reputation.

There are probably several churches that would not invite John at this point if you included this performance on his bio. At the least some explanation would be needed.

I don't nessecarily criticize the decision for him to sing at the CC. But I think it is a VERY careless statement to say you don't do some level of investigation as to the venues that John performs in. It makes it sound like you are booking anything, as long as there is a payday involved.

[BForm]

I have to be honest in saying that I find some of the reasoning very discouraging. In fact, I think it is a reflection of the kind of pragmatism that is infecting the church today. That is, the belief that whatever it takes to get the message to big numbers is pleasing to God. If that were the case, you wouldn't find God constantly using the underdog and using means that seemed foolish to world around us. Both the ends and the means must exalt the wisdom and power of God.

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? I know this sounds harsh, but I keep hearing all this pragmatic reasoning that fails to take scriputure into account. I'm really not trying to be harsh, but I wonder why 2 John 9-11 keeps getting ignored.

As far as commending Schuller's church for bringing in John, I have two points to make. The Schuller's, being consistant in their pluralistic views, are known to bring just about anyone in that will be interesting. They have put everyone in their pulpit from a new age spiritualist to Mark Driscoll (the cussing preacher). (Actually, there are some things I like about Driscoll. Though his use of profanity in the pulpit is disturbing).

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. Quite honestly, my church would disagree with that, and 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.