My response to Craig Groeschel
Craig Groeshel has a post about being authentic and real when speaking in a church. He encourages pastors to "bring you" to the table. Here's his post.
It seems incredibly ironic that a pastor who has built his church on video venues would talk about the importance of bringing all of himself to the message. But I'm learning here. and it would be the height of arrogance think I know best and sort of passively aggressively post stuff here without engaging him.
So I posted the following in the comment section of the post. He's a busy guy and frankly may not want to mess with a peon like myself. But we'll see. Below is my response to his post.
--------------------
Craig, I'm not sure how to say this bro. I hope you hear my heart in this comment, not as critical, but as curious... I love your content here on this post and I believe in what you are saying so much. But I frankly find it misleading. (unintentionally misleading)
You don't bring yourself to people every week my friend. (can I call you friend?) You bring a representation of yourself, with no soul, no body, no real life, only a thin version of yourself. It's probably better say, that you don't bring yourself to everyone. Because some people are present with you when you give your speech.
A thin Craig, online, or on a screen is not you and it will always be a poor substitute for you. It's not the real you. It's a dis-incarnate you, with frankly a dis-incarnate gospel.
Which is simply a poor far less than ideal way of being real. Mickey Roarke was real in the Wrestler. Phillip Seymore Hoffman is amazing in his roles. Meryl Streep and other actors are amazing. There is a part of the real them in the role on the screen. A thin authenticity. they are real, in the same way a speaker is presented on a screen. Regardless of if they are talking about God or not.
Am I wrong? help me understand. because I believe in you and your ministry,and your gifts. It just seems misleading to say you on a screen is real.
It seems incredibly ironic that a pastor who has built his church on video venues would talk about the importance of bringing all of himself to the message. But I'm learning here. and it would be the height of arrogance think I know best and sort of passively aggressively post stuff here without engaging him.
So I posted the following in the comment section of the post. He's a busy guy and frankly may not want to mess with a peon like myself. But we'll see. Below is my response to his post.
--------------------
Craig, I'm not sure how to say this bro. I hope you hear my heart in this comment, not as critical, but as curious... I love your content here on this post and I believe in what you are saying so much. But I frankly find it misleading. (unintentionally misleading)
You don't bring yourself to people every week my friend. (can I call you friend?) You bring a representation of yourself, with no soul, no body, no real life, only a thin version of yourself. It's probably better say, that you don't bring yourself to everyone. Because some people are present with you when you give your speech.
A thin Craig, online, or on a screen is not you and it will always be a poor substitute for you. It's not the real you. It's a dis-incarnate you, with frankly a dis-incarnate gospel.
Which is simply a poor far less than ideal way of being real. Mickey Roarke was real in the Wrestler. Phillip Seymore Hoffman is amazing in his roles. Meryl Streep and other actors are amazing. There is a part of the real them in the role on the screen. A thin authenticity. they are real, in the same way a speaker is presented on a screen. Regardless of if they are talking about God or not.
Am I wrong? help me understand. because I believe in you and your ministry,and your gifts. It just seems misleading to say you on a screen is real.
Labels: Church, church B, leadership
posted by mark at
2:20 PM
33 Comments:
How is being on a TV monitor different from being on a big lit stage in front of hundreds or thousands of people?
Both are similarly inaccessible... how do you propose to do it differently?
Nick Inc
Nick, Inc. (and Mark),
How about inviting people into your home? There's a "novel" idea. I heard about that somehwere...
I'm with you, Mark. It scares me. Nick's comments are more right on than he knows. It isn't any different. Arms-length ministry will never reach to people who aren't already steeped in "churchism."
"Video" church is just like "mega" only in HD...
i suppose there's a point there Nick. I'd suggest that a breathing flesh and blood person who is present in the room makes a big difference. I think living in the same town, makes a difference.
Certainly there are times when pastors are inaccessible and perhaps the only thing that makes them pastors become the things that they talk about in front of people. sorta of a professional christian. I've certainly been guilty of that.
I'd suggest the you define a pastor by the person you go to when you need something. they may not be paid, they may not be good at it, but they are flesh and bone people who share a common history.
what do you think?
Nick said "How is being on a TV monitor different from being on a big lit stage in front of hundreds or thousands of people?"
I would say that there is no difference. They are both presentations. Life is lived one on one and side by side...no stages involved...
tom
I think for so long people have seen the pastor as the guy who preaches to you on Sunday. I grew up a little different. We had a large church, but I was in the church office every day after school learning from the best church staff I have ever seen. EVER. They were all my pastors, my mentors, my spiritual fathers. And they taught me so much! I do not think of tv preachers as pastors. I think of them as preachers - like the old timey revival preachers. Someone who can really deliver the goods, but not necessarily someone I even want to get to know. And in some cases, that wasn't even an option.
SO...I see the point. I have had so many people in my life who have pastored me. Think about the word. Originally it meant (and still means) a person who shepherds flocks of dumb animals (I made the "dumb" part up). There is an intimacy implied in the word. If there's no intimacy, there's no pastoring going on. I think that's what the tv preachers and even the video venue preachers miss out on. Sure, they have their own local congregations, and God does amazing things through them. But, I guess that's why they have campus pastors. I have been to the original life church, I have heard Craig speak at conferences, I have some of his books. The man is gifted and can deliver. But he's not my pastor. And until he shepherds me he never will be -
I agree concerning pastors... i believe lifechurch has campus pastors for that very purpose, i think... im interested in knowing what the life church answer is. im not big on video feed services, i think they are better for personal study than corporate worship, like reading a book. maybe im wrong but i cant get past the ego behind such a thing, are there no other spirit led teachers available? maybe not... ive heard some pretty lame teaching over the years...where are the gifts of that body?
Prior to our move to Tulsa, we were regular attendees at the OKC campus, where Craig normally preaches in person weekly. During the services we found ourselves staring at the screen, despite the fact that Craig was right there in front of us. We have now moved to Tulsa, attend the Tulsa campus, and still get just as much from his sermons (on video) as we did when he delivered them to us in person.
While I understand what you're saying, and can appreciate your opinion, I must say that I have yet to know a pastor who is really physically available to every member of their congregation. I don't think that was the intent of Craig's comment. I think the idea was to be fully "available," meaning vulnerable, honest, open, straightforward--not holding anything back. I believe Craig does that well. His blunt, honest approach is one of the things we have really appreciated about his teaching style.
--God bless, Mark
I see what you are saying Riddle, but it really isn't that different in many churches...the 'pastor' is really just a teacher who has a select group of people with which he is authentic. Most 'pastors' are Sunday School teachers, Small Group leaders, etc. I have heard that each campus has a 'pastor'.
That said...I could never go to a church like that.
Look, I'm going to be real here, (cue lighting, side shot camera 2, sit casually on stool), I struggle with all of this.
(cut to front camera 1, pause, look at audience...er...congregation, cue camera shot of congregation, back to camera 2, begin background music) I've said this before, and I'll say it again, the last thing our disconnected culture needs is a local expression of the Body of Christ that is nothing more than representation, where strangers sit next to strangers and listen to "great" messages delivered by strangers...and yet they all feel like they "know" each other and have "fellowship" with one another. When it comes to the screen pastors and "authenticity", it's like watching American Idol and deciding that you're somehow "close" to a certain contestant.
It's creepy.
(lights down, exit stage right, bring up music)
hmm really interesting for me to post on this because it's SOOOOO crosscultural. here in kiwi-land - this is nearly unheard of, beyond overflow rooms at some larger churches. but the preacher is still in the same building.
the closest relative experience was watching John Piper onscreen for 45min at a Passion regional in 2007. it was a research trip. i made lots of notes. especially around how easily people watched.. and then even responded to the dvd with nods, hmms, etc.
and it was really, extremely, bizarrely weird. it made no sense to my cultural heritage, where presence and mana (respect) are so linked and vital.
but because it's cross cultural to me, i can view it also objectively, and understand the pros and cons that would make this a reasonable action for some communities, even if I might personally feel it wasn't really the best.
the essence of who i am is more than my words, tone or expression.. I am 4 dimensions..
i'm feeling like it's a bit cross cultural to me too Tash. I'm learning that it seems I'm having difficulty communicating what I'm asking to the folks who frequent that blog. I don't want them to be defensive, or feel attacked - I'm sure they get enough of that. So how does a conversation happen in their setting... still seeking to understand how they put it all together, but often I'm left feeling like like they want to be one church as long as I don't have questions for them.
This is important to me because while they can give stories of people raising their hands to the "gospel" I can tell stories of people coming from their church who are burned, hurt, frustrated, or more disenfranchised than ever with the local church. These are my neighbors etc.
So this is part of my motivation to listen.
hmmmm. yup. i hear you in the struggle. keep going.
hey riddle...as somebody stuck in the middle of these two worlds i appreciate your bravery in asking the questions.....it's downright humorous to read the conversation. i just think there are two schools of thought and most people just can't seem to understand the other's point of view.
interesting thoughts from everyone and i think an important discussion. i agree with jimmy that just coming to a church service and never engaging in meaningful conversations is not really community, but i also think this can happen just as easily at a church with no video teaching or regardless of its size. If people want to be invisible, that's their choice.
I go to a church that is less than 200 people and we recently had someone tell our pastor that he came for three straight weeks and not one person greeted him or spoke to him after the service. (The conversation with the pastor happened on his fourth week...luckily, he is a mature believer ans stuck around long enough to share this with him.)
Bottom line for me, community has to be kindled until it burns hot...what are we doing as the church to stoke the fire?
Well, then, Paul sure was wrong to preach to people by letter.
Obviously teaching ministry from someone who is not there to connect with you is completely ineffective.
Ok, being part of the LC network, we are blessed to have God's word taught each Sunday. We have various Pastors in our church who help to bring "biblical community" to the experience Sunday through Sunday.....as Robert mentioned. We all are ministers in a sense. Not all Pastors are good messengers. I'm sure we have all experienced that. Craig helps to lay the groundwork each week as a "part" of the total. Pray this adds something to this conversation.
@arminius -
Your comment regarding Paul was a very important observation. Paul did indeed do a lot of pastoring, preaching and teaching via the medium of letters. Because of his letters, Paul STILL preaches and pastors to us today.
I look at video as a MEDIUM, just like paper. Video is a great way to communicate the truths of the gospel to the masses. I believe that Craig's concept is innovative and Spirit led; it is obvious that the hand of God is over his life.
As long as there are campus pastors creating community on a daily basis, I would argue that LC.tv's campus locations may experience greater community than some mid-size local congregations. I am also sure that Craig spends a great deal of time equipping and empowering OTHERS to operate in a pastoral capacity... which is something that I have found lacking in many smaller churches. Some congregants expect the pastor to be all things to all people; however it is physically impossible to be multiple places at once.
Ok, I get that Lifechurch.tv and Craig's way is not the way every church is. I have been to many that have certain areas of specialty in how the Gospel is delivered. I have to admit that if those of you who condemn the way Lifechurch.tv is run, I think you should take the time and go to Lifechurch.tv and watch this weeks message behind the scenes. The truth is that as Christians we are so critical of each other, rather than focusing on the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. As a fully devoted follower of Christ, and someone who does attend Lifechurch, I pray that this will be taken in the spririt that it was intended. God Bless. Ron in Fort Worth Texas
Yes, I think you totally misunderstood what Craig was saying. Please don't criticize churches who are doing things a little different. You can't argue with how many people's lives are being changed every week at all of the campuses. Lifechurch is not for everyone, but just because you think you wouldn't like it, don't bash it. When my husband resigned as pastor of a traditional church we visited Lifechurch and I didn't like it the first time, but after visiting traditional churches, I couldn't go back to the same old thing during that time of my life.
As an extremely excited member of LifeChurch.tv since our failed church in Fort Worth merged with it a few years ago, I find it ironic that people (well-meaning people, as I think is obvious from your comments) could criticize something you haven't experienced. Amazing really. Do you not see the contradiction? Every week in our little campus I seen the multitudes streaming in. As a member of the Host Team I actually have an opportunity to look them in the eye and demonstrate something of the worth they have as people in God's eyes. And I see them respond to the message and to our members and--more than that--I seen them begin to change. We have local pastors, small groups, mission outreach, everything necessary to building community.
We also have a senior pastor who shares his pulpit at least a third of the time, with members of his in-house teaching team and with outside speakers and other churches' pastors.
Here is something I posted not long ago on Craig's blog:
May I be honest with you? As a long-time fan (and emulator) of such parachurch organizations as the Navigators, I have never been as excited being involved in something as I am, right now, being involved in the FW Campus. When a network pastor in Australia prays for the offering, when pastor from another (non-network) church takes the pulpit, when I hear of changed lives in London and across the world–when I look into the eyes of the people streaming into our little campus–I feel an excitement I’ve never felt before.
I go into my week confident I’m on the winning team, no matter what the dominant media voices or the culture around me say.
We have Christ, we’re doing what he says do, and we’re going to nail this thing.
That's my take...
I'm sorry. May I impose with one more thought?
When my wife and I first prayed for direction in whether to go on with the establishment of the LifeChurch campus here, we realized something God was calling us to do. He was calling us to go to church, not to meet our needs--whether the style of worship, the music, whatever--but in order to reach out to people who did not know Christ yet and who needed to. It didn't take us long to realize the irrelevancy of whether the pastor-teacher was physically present in the room with us. And though the music is not what we would have selected for ourselves, it is reaching others in a way our music never would. And we have come to love it as much as anythings else we've sung with or listened to in church growing up.
It's not about us. It's about reaching people who need him desperately.
Sorry, I'm a bit late to this post. As a former member of the Lifechurch in AZ, I can attest to needing more of a flesh and blood pastor. We enjoyed Craig's teaching but it wasn't enough. And the constant changes in leadership on our campus really left us feeling lost. Craig has extraordinary ideas, wonderful ambition, and a true heart for God. What he lacks is the ability to see that his way is not always His way.
I whole-heartedly believe that the way Craig is leading life church is the way God has called him to lead life church. From my perspective, their approach to ministry is reaching thousands of people around the world (not just in the USA) and there are not many churches doing that to my knowledge. Is he at every campus? No. Have people left his church frustrated? Sure. Do I believe that Craig is the real deal? Yes, He brings Craig to the table every week on the stage God has him on. My question: How is this different than listening to a worship CD? Is Chris Tomlin not bringing the real Chris Tomlin because he is not at the church we are at? Is his soul, heart, and passion not in his music? They are leading you to worship and they are real. With all due respect, I find your response to Craig's blog similar to the responses of the Pharisees in the Bible who wanted to protect the way it was always done because it is safe. The world is changing and so should our methods (despite our theological view)- I said with all due respect.
Ladies and Gentlemen
The modern church is simply reacting to the postmodern world that she is living in. The question we need to ask ourselves is this, what are how should seriously minded Christian do in a technopolonic (yes I just created a word based on neil postman's writings and lectures he is on youtube if you want to catch up) world. A world that is image based and so superficial. I think the answer is found in scripture our final authority in all of life. How about returning to relational based ministry? How about seeking for churches (or planting them if we have to) where families actually meet each other on a weekly basis beyond the church building? How about seeking for shepherds who are not so focused on becoming media giants. Shepherds who are broken hearted, weak and maybe even search for someone who is bald and ugly? I'm not kidding. Take a look at Tim Keller and his comments about himself. He actually thanks God that he wasnt born with great hair, eyes and so on. Our world is so focus on the outer appearance of man that we tend to be drawn to shepherds who look more like actors than actual shepherds. Just a thought. We need churches where broken people can find a place with genuine Christianity enough of this modern day commercialized Christianity. Now, I am not against not utilizing the media I am suggesting that we need to be careful especially shepherds. At the beginning it starts with hey lets video tape my sermons to hey I might need some Botox or even worse looking at yourself in the mirror to make sure your poses are camera perfect. Lets be careful guys the world and its consumption of self is creeping into the church. We need a balanced perspective. Yes, lets use the media and the internet and so on and so forth, but lets be careful we might loose that so important ingredient to ministry, personal connection.
Brother Peter
Craig groeschel is awesome.
U people need to quit questioning God and listen to his word.
I would like to add a thought or two here. I am curious and concerned about the moment in the history of the church which we live. I see the point on both sides of the video church question. As I read your posts I must say that I believe that to video or not to video is the wrong question. I also believe that gathering the masses or not; lives touched or not are also the wrong questions. Comparing what some would call a "packaged church" to a letter delivered by an apostle to an established church of believers also seems a stretch. I know that people often say times have changed the church needs to change with them. Here too I agree and disagree.
So by now everybody is wondering if this guy makes up his mind about anything or does he see both sides of everything? Yes and no…just a joke!
The reason for my seeming double mindedness is as I stated earlier: I think we ask the wrong question. So then what is the right question or questions…
Perhaps the first question that we have to ask is: Do we understand the post-modern context in light of a timeless God or do we understand a timeless God through a post-modern context? Is there a difference? Absolutely, a huge difference! The danger that many sense but cannot identify is that in this age in which we live the post-modern context is using the image of the timeless God to disseminate a god defined by the tenants of post-modernism. Things become very “Christian” and very much not Christian at the same time. First methodologies change…which of course is ok. However as time passes and changes are accepted absolutes begin to change as well…which is not ok. But in the mind of the post-modern Christian it is ok. In fact, that is the goal…because there are no absolutes.
So are Craig and lifechurch a bunch of post-modern-ers? I sure hope not. I want to believe not. But something just does not seem on spot. If not outright post-modern-ers they seem to be on a very slippery post-modern slope.
Are they are extremely forward thinking people…creative and talented? Yes. Are the organizational aspects are just about mind-boggling? Yes. Are they reaching more people than most of us can count? Yes. Are they sincere people? I would think yes. Why such a big problem? Because for the vast majority the questions and the answers lie in forward thinking, creativity, talent, organization, numbers and sincerity not in the revelation of an Unchanging, Unmovable, Timeless God of absolutes who asks us to conform to His will and ways.
I would like to add a thought or two here. I am curious and concerned about the moment in the history of the church which we live. I see the point on both sides of the video church question. As I read your posts I must say that I believe that to video or not to video is the wrong question. I also believe that gathering the masses or not; lives touched or not are also the wrong questions. Comparing what some would call a "packaged church" to a letter delivered by an apostle to an established church of believers also seems a stretch. I know that people often say times have changed the church needs to change with them. Here too I agree and disagree.
So by now everybody is wondering if this guy makes up his mind about anything or does he see both sides of everything? Yes and no…just a joke!
The reason for my seeming double mindedness is as I stated earlier: I think we ask the wrong question. So then what is the right question or questions…
Perhaps the first question that we have to ask is: Do we understand the post-modern context in light of a timeless God or do we understand a timeless God through a post-modern context? Is there a difference? Absolutely, a huge difference! The danger that many sense but cannot identify is that in this age in which we live the post-modern context is using the image of the timeless God to disseminate a god defined by the tenants of post-modernism. Things become very “Christian” and very much not Christian at the same time. First methodologies change…which of course is ok. However as time passes and changes are accepted absolutes begin to change as well…which is not ok. But in the mind of the post-modern Christian it is ok. In fact, that is the goal…because there are no absolutes.
So are Craig and lifechurch a bunch of post-modern-ers? I sure hope not. I want to believe not. But something just does not seem on spot. If not outright post-modern-ers they seem to be on a very slippery post-modern slope.
Are they are extremely forward thinking people…creative and talented? Yes. Are the organizational aspects are just about mind-boggling? Yes. Are they reaching more people than most of us can count? Yes. Are they sincere people? I would think yes. Why such a big problem? Because for the vast majority the questions and the answers lie in forward thinking, creativity, talent, organization, numbers and sincerity not in the revelation of an Unchanging, Unmovable, Timeless God of absolutes who asks us to conform to His will and ways.
I would like to add a thought or two here. I am curious and concerned about the moment in the history of the church which we live. I see the point on both sides of the video church question. As I read your posts I must say that I believe that to video or not to video is the wrong question. I also believe that gathering the masses or not; lives touched or not are also the wrong questions. Comparing what some would call a "packaged church" to a letter delivered by an apostle to an established church of believers also seems a stretch. I know that people often say times have changed the church needs to change with them. Here too I agree and disagree.
So by now everybody is wondering if this guy makes up his mind about anything or does he see both sides of everything? Yes and no…just a joke!
The reason for my seeming double mindedness is as I stated earlier: I think we ask the wrong question. So then what is the right question or questions…
Perhaps the first question that we have to ask is: Do we understand the post-modern context in light of a timeless God or do we understand a timeless God through a post-modern context? Is there a difference? Absolutely, a huge difference! The danger that many sense but cannot identify is that in this age in which we live the post-modern context is using the image of the timeless God to disseminate a god defined by the tenants of post-modernism. Things become very “Christian” and very much not Christian at the same time. First methodologies change…which of course is ok. However as time passes and changes are accepted absolutes begin to change as well…which is not ok. But in the mind of the post-modern Christian it is ok. In fact, that is the goal…because there are no absolutes.
So are Craig and lifechurch a bunch of post-modern-ers? I sure hope not. I want to believe not. But something just does not seem on spot. If not outright post-modern-ers they seem to be on a very slippery post-modern slope.
Are they are extremely forward thinking people…creative and talented? Yes. Are the organizational aspects are just about mind-boggling? Yes. Are they reaching more people than most of us can count? Yes. Are they sincere people? I would think yes. Why such a big problem? Because for the vast majority the questions and the answers lie in forward thinking, creativity, talent, organization, numbers and sincerity not in the revelation of an Unchanging, Unmovable, Timeless God of absolutes who asks us to conform to His will and ways.
I think that almost every one of you miss the point. Wait....
I attend Celebration Church with Stovall Weems in Jacksonville, Florida. No, we don't have 30,000 people in our church, but I think its between 12,000-15,000. I attend the midtown campus (that is where Pastor Stovall preaches from) and sit on the front row. I have attended other campus' in which I had to watch from the screen. The crazy part is even when on the front row with Stovall 10 feet from me, I still look at the screen.
Ok, back to what I wanted to say. I feel a lot of people look at the multi-campus idea and think the preacher/church has a pride/ego problem, etc. It's not that. This is 2011. Technology is key in today's world. Would you agree? Not just that, but what is the great commission about? We are to lead people to Christ and help train up disciples. SALVATIONS!!! LOST SOULS!!! It's about helping prevent others from going to Hell. Love it or hate it, that is what our lives are about. PERIOD! Ok, so with that thought, and if you agree with that, how best to do that? Preach in a church with 100 people, and always the same people? Never new attendees? And I'm not saying anything at all against the small church, but if your theology is Biblically sound and the Lord blesses your ministry with multi campus's, Church Online and so on and so forth, then use it the best way you can for the glory of Jesus Christ!
Remember, Salvations. Please remember that. It's about leading lost souls to Christ. Nothing else matters.
And for those of you that may ask me about Stovall, you can see our church at www.Celebration.org - most of you have probably heard of our worship team (we do a lot with Hillsong). That info is at http://worship.celebration.org
Feel free to email me if you want to continue this convo or any others at iamchrisstone@gmail.com or my twitter is www.twitter.com/iamchrisstone
Have a blessed day guys!
chris
A pastor only has so many hours in his day. Most pastors also have families. How are they supposed to make themselves accessible to every person in their church and still be the husband and father they were called to be?
The problem is that we've professionalized ministry and expect the pastors to do it all. The primary calling of the pastor is to equip the saints for the ministry, not to do all of the ministry himself. The apostles gave us the example when they appointed deacons to serve the needs of the first century church while they focused on prayer and the ministry of the word.
I'm personally not a huge fan of the megachurch concept, but I think the criticism in the blog post is baseless.
I am totally with you bro. Preachers on a screen is like the Bible on a screen. I am not even taking my bible anymore. It is all to make your brain more of a zombi. Yesterday in church I wanted to look up something because I was trying to measure what the Word said with what the pastor said. Ha...no Bible. I thought...what am I DOING? I know the WORD because I have spent thousands of hours in it...and now, I don't need it because of technology? Who needs it? Really...who needs a video zoomed in Craig Groeschel when we could be sitting by a peaceful pond and studying the Word in "real time" with a "real Holy Spirit" and having a "real time of worship"? What a novel thought.
I have been attending LiveChurch for the past 3 almost 4 years. It is a new way to spread the Gospel to people who were not being reached at traditional churches and beyond. I am blessed that I attend one of the satalite campuses, but live close enough to the main campus and on occassion I make the trip to see Craig live and in person. He is consistant and real. I have had the chance to meet him in person a few times, and I am just a regular guy, nothing overly imoportant or special about me, yet he did not hesitate to talk with me and pray for me. I am sure he is not perfect, but he is with out a doubt sincere. He lessons are very practical, based in truth and speak to me. I find the more I involve myself in my campus and serve with and through LifeChurch the more like home it is and the closer I feel to God. The mission is to lead people to become fully devoted followers of Christ. I can't say that I have not had disagreements with some things LifeChurch does, but overall I think Craig is on point and a great man of God. He is kingdom minded and one of the most generous men in ministry.
It saddens me to see a brother in Christ call another one out on the floor on such matters of choice and not biblical wrong doing.
Ladies and gentleman, Paul was just a man and you only see a thin representation of him through the pages of the bible. Yet his message comes through and hopefully moves us through the Spirit to be a reflection of Christ. It is the Spirit that does the work, we are just tools. (and I don't mean that in a mean way)
Books, videos, tweets, facebook, and all other "not in your livingroom per say" technologies are just that, far away. Does that make the words spoken any less deserving of our prayerful berean style consideration. I would say no it is not different. Is it a replacement for face to face contact with other believers, absolutly NOT!
Is what Craig does different, yes. Is it biblically wrong, that is the question. Craig isn't in my direct fellowship I can't say. So I choose to prayerfully consider his stories, words of encouragement, and judge by scripture. We all say things that are ironic. Lets not hold the "big guy" to a different standard just because he is doing it differently.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home