Posted by: Yvonne | December 27, 2009

CCO’s man-centered ‘Core Purpose’

Our Core Purpose
Transforming college students to transform the world .

This statement is taken directly from the CCO website where they explain who they are.

From which Scripture passage could a Christian ministry come up with this ‘core purpose’?

Where does Jesus ever insinuate that His followers are to ‘transform the world’?

 

Those who doubt the man-centered ideology of CCO must have their proverbial heads in the  sand. 

 

 

 

 

This is an example of the powerful influence of Dominion/Kingdom Now theology.  Most people in leadership do not even know they are teaching this subtle deception

For more information you can read an excellent article called, ‘Transforming Society’, by Anton Bosch, here, and another called, ‘The Gospel of the Kingdom’, here.

~**~**~**~**~**~**~**~**~**~ 

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.   11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,  12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!   13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:10-13

 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Dear Yvonne,

    Thanks for these two articles about the difference between Christians around the question of the gospel of salvation, and what Jesus may have meant by “the gospel of the Kingdom.” I don’t fully agree with all of the author’s reaction, but it was pretty solid stuff, I’d say. It was a reasonable fair presentation of one side of the “debate” about this and had much good to say. There are some out there who, seeing so much in the gospels about “the Kingdom” that they seem not to speak much of “the King” Himself, and that is a concern. Personal evangelism must always be a central mission of the church and of individual Christians. I do not think this is the time or place to unpack all the nuances and differences that he raised; anyway, it is your website, so if you offer these fair views, that is fine.

    I was glad that he noted that the Bible does not call Christians to avoid social concerns, and that certainly we would hope to see some “transformation” or impact of our preaching of the gospel. In most of the known, studied revivals, the social fruit has been commendable—renewed marriages, honest work, just politics, less violence, social betterment due to the spiritually transformed lives once people become conformed to the image of Christ and grow in Him. The fruit of public righteousness grows out of the soil of authentic revival. It seems like your linked author appreciated that. I agree.

    Of course there are oodles and oodles of verses from the Old Testament law, through the time of the monarchy, certainly the prophets, the wisdom literature, and more prophets that forms the foundation for understanding what Jesus came to do to fulfill the intentions of God to rescue His planet. Some of us read the gospels and Paul in light of this whole on-going and unfolding history of redemption and it is hard to understand the New Testament without knowledge of the Old. So when Colossians 1 says Christ wants to have first place in everything, or when Jesus says to be leaven, or cites Isaiah in his first sermons (Luke 4) or James rails against injustice against workers, or Paul in Romans 12 talks about feeding your enemies, or in Romans 13 talks about God good gift of government, or when Paul orders more books to read from Timothy, we naturally see Jesus compelling us to be engaged and involved in every zone of life allowing His ways to be embodied in all we do. Whether this will actually transform anything is up to God and His good pleasure. We try to live faithfully across all our human activities. Some Christians (like Mennonites, for instance, and perhaps the guy who wrote your articles) emphasize mostly staying away from the world. Others emphasize “in but not of” like the end of John. This is not a new discussion within the larger Body of Christ.

    But here is what is so very disturbing about your post: most people who pay attention to evangelical thinking—throughout church history and in these days–know that there is this bit of a debate between emphasis. We all agree that we are to love our neighbor, and the Bible insists that social justice is part of God’s desire. But what is the order of involvement: do you do personal evangelism first and then feed the poor? Or the other way around? When Isaiah says we are to have a reputation for people who “repair the breeches” does that mean we are to be known for social restoration, today? If so, how much so? Does Micah 6:8 mean we are to be involved in social justice (public and political) AND mercy (personal deeds of kindness) AND piety (prayer and humility)? All three every day?? Should we mostly do evangelism or care for the lonely and offer “a cup of water in Christ’s name”? Study good doctrine or do outreach and evangelism? Or work on having good marriages and families? Or work on your prayer life, mostly? Well, all of the above, most of us think (right?). Some days God calls us to visit the prisoner, other days to argue about doctrine, some time we get to share the good news with a lost soul. Our care for others naturally leads us to want to make our neighbors lot in life better, so alongside evangelism, church history has been full of Christians starting hospitals and schools and doing mental health care and fighting racism and all the rest…Some of history’s best scientists and artists have done their work out of a Christian worldview, and this is commendable, is it not? It is my understanding that most Christians believe we do all of these sorts of things, and it is my understanding that CCO teaches this, too. This isn’t any weird new theology or any odd heresy sneaking in. Why would you say that?

    Didn’t you see Amazing Grace? Do you deny that Wilberforce was being true to his calling to serve God at his post as a politician? In fact, don’t you agree that the Pauline teaching about calling and vocation suggests that we should all stay at our ordinary jobs unless God calls us elsewhere? But that in them, we have to have “the mind of Christ” and be “non-conformed” to the world? (Romans 12:1-2) Luther taught this, as did Calvin, and the Puritans, and Wesley and Abraham Kuyper and Jonathan Edwards up to John Piper and (although not a big emphasis, but some) John MacArthur and Billy Graham and a host of solid, respected evangelicals.

    So if you disagree with this–against the evangelical mainstream and most of church history—why must you suggest that the CCO is “powerfully” influenced by the Kingdom Now stuff? I believe that particular movement is Pentecostal, isn’t it? That seemed to be the movement that the articles you linked to were opposing. I asked you (or Judy) to clarify the last time you (or Judy) made this odd accusation, and you didn’t answer.

    If it is that Kingdom Now movement you are referencing, I can assure you that CCO has not been influenced by them. The CCOs vision of discipleship including serving God in various occupations and careers came mostly from their study of early R.C. Sproul and Francis Schaeffer and Abraham Kuyper, pre-dating the “kingdom now” stuff. I think your accusation is just off base, and I wonder why you say that about them. CCO has been teaching this approach for longer than “kingdom now” or “dominion” teachings have been around, I believe.

    So those teachings are out but it is very, very unlikely that they’ve had any influence in CCO leadership or training. I think you are pretty confused by trying to link those odd traditions and the teachings of the CCO. A “powerful influence”? Try none at all!

    Further you say that these ideas may be sneaking in from Dominion theology. Again, that just isn’t the stream that CCO is in. It just isn’t. They’ve gotten this whole-life view of God’s Kingdom being a restoration of every thing in creation from those like Al Wolters (a conservative Dutch Bible scholar) and Brian Walsh, from John Stott and R.C. Sproul and Fran Schaeffer and J.I. Packer and Os Guinness and John Perkins and Marva Dawn and Chuck Colson and Jim Skillen and Ron Sider. There have been many who have influenced the diversity of people who have worked for CCO and, yes, most have believed that God wants to bring His transforming revival and reformation to everything. You can disagree with that, but it is pretty easy to trace back where CCO gets it. All you have to do is ask them, or read some of the training books they’ve used, or listen to old Jubilee conference tapes. You saying they are “powerfully influenced by…” these other ideas is just ill-informed. You should say “ooops” and clarify in what ways the CCOs vision may or may not be similar to these other groups, if that is what you meant, perhaps. Fair enough, if you document your claim, and not just assert it.

    So, again, as I’ve asked with Judy about her speaking terrible falsehoods about Jubilee, I ask you: why can’t you just say what you disagree with without making claims that are so untruthful?
    The concerns you ask–does Jesus’ teachings authorize efforts of social improvement?–are fair ones. But it is hard to have meaningful Bible discussion with somebody who has spoken untruthfully about another.

    Haven’t you ever heard that adage about trying to understand a person before you critique them? If you want to point out error in the CCO, don’t you want to describe and diagnose their error correctly? Talk to anybody who has be involved in crafting CCO training for the last 35 years and none will say they are even a little bit influenced by the sources you site. I am sure of it.

    You may disagree with the emphasize of this whole-life restoration that Francis Schaeffer R. C. Sproul and John Stott and Al Wolters and others taught; fine. But it is NOT “man-centered”!

    Could you explain what you mean by that? I hope you are not bringing back that untruth that Judy passed–but sort of retracted—by implying that CCO or Jubilee teaches that humans can save themselves or that self improvement or social betterment without Christ is what they are after! No, no, no! CCO insists that God’s love for His people is such that we are to share the gospel of the cross with one and all. And live it out in every area of life, being a witness in all we do. That is not “man centered” in any way at all. Jesus saves. God in His mercy sanctifies. CCO teaches “death to the old man” as they help students “put on” Christ, standard Pauline stuff about conversion and sanctification. The triune God of the Bible is the One to whom we give all honor. God’s Kingdom is the social reality that is coming “on earth as it is in heaven.” One must be born of the Spirit—born again–to enter His Kingdom (which, like the stone in Daniel, will smash all idols.) I cannot imagine a CCO leader who wouldn’t agree whole-heartedly. Nothing humanistic or social gospel or man-centered at all about any of this. On what basis can you make such a claim??? Why would you want to say this when it is evident you don’t have the full story?

    Yes, there are times when “actions speak louder than words” (I know CCO workers who care for drunk students late at night; I know some who staff crisis pregnancy centers–heck, I started a crisis pregnancy center. I know CCO students who drive lonely students to the grocery store or take them out for coffee. I know they teach their Christian students to do kind acts for non-believing students, like help them move furniture or tutor or invite them over for wholesome parties and such. Sure they do typical stuff that young adults do, watch TV and talk about sports and counsel about their schoolwork or parents–is this wrong? And, yes, they speak the gospel clearly and invite students to become followers of Jesus by receiving the gift of salvation through His cross. They preach with words and serve with actions, show and tell, live and speak, study the Word and walk the talk, like “living epistles” they proclaim the gospel of the cross and the shedding of the blood and Christ’s victory over death and the promise of resurrection (of the body) and the coming of the Kingdom, just like Jesus told us to. What is “man centered” about any of this?

    If you don’t like the phrase “transforming culture” explain why, but don’t accuse them falsely. That is just a sin.

    Again, if (like the articles you linked to) you have some theological beef with this fairly common approach that most evangelicals hold to—that personal evangelism and social concern, living faithfully in personal and public ways is what we must do as Christians—then say so. Linking to those articles was helpful to show your take on things. Fine.

    But this accusation of a “man-centered ideology” is a very serious accusation. Saying that transformed (mostly meaning converted and being sanctified, I would think) students make a differences as salt and light where-ever in the world they go, equals “man-centered” is such a misinterpretation!

    Why not call up a leader of the CCO and ask them what they mean by that phrase. Then publish that? Or is that too much investigative work? Can you report that you talked to any principle in the CCO leadership? Any organizer of the Jubilee event? Can you look them in the face and say that they teach a “man centered ideology”? I am sure they’d be patience and kind to assure you that they don’t teach a man-centered anything, as they desire to be Biblical. But they’d assure you quickly and without hesitation.

    I hope my rebuke to you—I say rebuke because you’ve passed these unsubstantiated rumors and undocumented accusations before—causes you to re-word your critique. Blast away. Just tell the truth.

    Glen, others who are fans? These ladies seems to be your friends. Can’t you get them to tone down their wild and untruthful accusations? To use language more precisely? Why do you all put up with this habit of slandering others without documentation or clear proof of their outlandish untruths??

    CCO “powerfully influenced…” by some movement they’ve never had any interaction with? Teaching a “man-centered ideology”? This a gigantic accusations.

    Tell the truth.

  2. Byron says:

    “Of course there are oodles and oodles of verses from the Old Testament law, through the time of the monarchy, certainly the prophets, the wisdom literature, and more prophets that forms the foundation for understanding what Jesus came to do to fulfill the intentions of God to rescue His planet.”

    I did not have to read very far into his comment to recognize the fact that this is a perfect example of what Judy and I are speaking of in the latest series of posts concerning CCO/Jubilee and Geneva College.

    No where in Scripture, despite what Byron thinks, does God state or insinuate that Jesus came to ‘rescue His planet’. And as I stated in the post, no where does God, Jesus or the prophets command us to ‘transform’ the culture, either!

    *******

    The ‘Core Purpose’ of CCO/Jubilee is stated perfectly clear for everyone to see. This ministry is teaching that man is capable of transforming this world.

    Scripture testifies, in the passage I quoted above, and others, that this world will burn up; it will not be transformed by man, but will be destroyed.

    “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away…” Rev. 21:1

  3. Yvonnee,

    You make a gigantic and illogical leap from our disagreement about society, culture, and God’s redemptive purposes. You and I could swap Bible verses for a long time, and if you didn’t accuse me of utter heresy, I”d enjoy it.

    But I want to know why you miss, or refuse to answer, my # 1 concern: why do you say that the CCO, who believes that the power of Jesus in people’s lives should make a difference in the world “God so loves” is man-centered?

    I won’t repeat my long remarks, but I am sorry you skipped this major point of mine: that to think that the Bible teaches that we should care about God’s world MAY be wrong (as you say, against most everybody in church history) but it does not prove your point that, therefore CCO or Jubilee teaches that the world can be “transformed by man.”

    HERE IS MY QUESTION TO YOU AND YOUR SUPPORTERS: WHY DO YOU KEEP INSISTING SOMETHING IS TRUE ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION WHEN THEY INSIST OTHERWISE?

    Yes, CCO’s Jubilee stands in the tradition that believes Christ is using His people for His good purposes, which, many believe, means loving our neighbors in ways that make the world a better place. So we work for revival and reformation, in Christ’s name, through His power, for His glory.

    HOW IS THIS MAN CENTERED??

    Again, again, again: you speak untruths that do not follow logically.

    Jubilee does NOT teach a man-centered view of social betterment. We teach a Christ-centered view. The cross is central, and I’ve testified to that over and over.

    You jump from the “core purpose” and then YOU add something that is NOT in any CCO literature or Jubilee speakers, ever–that we believe in a man-centered view.

    WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?

    You sound like the old guy who said “don’t talk to me about facts, my mind is made up.”

    On what basis do you say that this desire to glorifying God by good works–a direct quote from Jesus the Lord—indicates that CCO believes that “man” can transform the world. Only we humans, IN CHRIST can do anything.

    Can you explain what you mean by “man centered”?

    • Byron,

      It is a very simple answer — deception is blinding CCO’s ability to discern God’s Truth from man’s wisdom. It is not our goal to convince you of anything. You may be CCO’s bulldog but you have disqualified yourself as a person who possesses or values discernment and Truth. Your bookstore and book reviews speak much “louder and clearer” than ANYTHING you could write on our blog.

  4. It is fine if you don’t like my book reviews at my site. But saying you don’t think I’m trustworthy is beside the point: in what way does your attack on me reply to the charges I’ve levelled against you (namely, that you have spoken untruthfully about the core purposes of the CCO?) Does your disapproval of me mean you don’t have to speak honestly about them? What kind of logic is that? Really.

    I agree, we need not convince one another of your or my orthodoxy or who is qualified to speak. In God’s grace we will, if we be in Christ, someday feast together and this ugliness will be forgotten.

    But for now, the question is why you say things that are not true about the CCO. Your “simple answer” is a non-sequitor. Maybe they cannot discern God’s truth, as you say, perhaps you are right. But that is not an answer to my question to you.

    You said they teach a man-centered ideology. I say that is not true.

    To make such a large claim, you must prove it. It is wrong to make such vast statements about someone. Decent people who care about honesty understand this. I trust you don’t want to speak falsely, do you?

    To say they are blinded may or may not be true. But it avoids the question: I asked you to explain what you meant by man-centered and why a desire to transform the world in Christ and thru Christ and for Christ indicates that they believe humans can redeem the world on their own, a charge that you made that many think to be way, way, way off base; not even close to being truthful.

    You have been asked to explain yourself about what you mean, and to clarify your view, or to document it in some way.

    It looks like you are avoiding the basic challenge to be honest and clear. You say stuff that doesn’t prove your point.

    Can you document your claim about CCO believing in a Man centered ideology? That they believe social concerns means we can redeem the world? You can say they are deceived, but you can’t say they teach a man-centered ideology, if it isn’t true that they do.

    Those are serious claims, made without regard for the facts. When asked to substantiate these wrongful accusations, you fail to do so.

    Your answer–they are deceived—is a non-answer to that specific question.

    Have you ever been on jury duty? Would that pass as a fair accusation and be compelling to anyone? (“Your honor, they believe in mankind saving himself. Proof? You want proof of that charge? Well, they are guilty because they are deceived.” That is just not adequate.

    You would save us all a lot of time if you just documented your claims or didn’t make claims that are untrue.

    If this were a small matter, we could let it go.

    But you two ladies have made extraordinary claims about this particular matter and you have yet to apologize or retract (or prove your point.)

  5. Byron, you say: “you have spoken untruthfully about the core purposes of the CCO?”

    I copied the ‘core purpose’ directly from their website. Maybe you are unfamiliar with this focus. Since it was copied, how can it be untruthful?

    I offered Scripture (2 Peter 3: 10-13) to show that CCO’s ‘core purpose’ cannot possibly be in line with what God plan for earth. How can Christians be working to ‘transform the world’ if it will be destroyed?

    You continue to rely on church history and fathers, vague references to Isaiah, Paul and James, and R.C. Sproul. I’d like you to point to specific Scripture that states or even implies that we, as Christians, have been commanded to ‘transform the world’ much less the culture.

    We Christians are commanded “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations…” Luke 24:44

    Here’s what you asked for:

    I am convinced that there is a distinct difference here. You believe, as does CCO/Jubilee, as evidenced by their core purpose, that man will (with God’s help) save the world/culture. (This thinking is prominent in emergent circles, liberal theology and Dominionist/Kingdom Now, too.) There is not one passage of Scripture to support this belief. It’s man’s wisdom, man-centered.

    I believe that God’s word is clear that this world is doomed and will suffer God’s Wrath. Scripture is also clear that we Christians are to be working at sharing the Gospel, making disciples and serving our neighbors until that time that Jesus takes us home. Until then, we are aliens here, not focused on saving the planet.

    *****

    While you’re busy attacking Judy and me, you avoid the information in the post. That’s a logical fallacy-ad hominem. Quote some Scripture to support your beliefs, Byron. Quit your reliance on tradition, church history and address the subject.

    There is an abundance of evidence in each post of the liberal/emergent leanings of CCO/Jubilee. Focus on the dangers therein!

  6. Yvonne:

    THANK YOU. I have found this somewhat helpful.

    Two quick note about my posts, and then one big point.

    1. References to Jeremiah, Amos, Jesus and Paul were so well known allusions that I didn’t print out the verses. With some, I am sure you know which verses I was alluding to. I have alluded to (granted not usually spelled out) plenty of Scripture. I do agree that that is essential.

    However to name the church leaders of the past and the respected leaders of today illustrates that the view I’ve expressed stands pretty solidly in the mainstream of Christian thinking. I think your readers may want to know that.

    I have said that I am less interested in convincing you about the validity of the CCO’s view that God wants us to see Godly reformation of culture or society than in the ONE big thing: having you access the situation with fairness and honesty. I am not really interested in debating the Bible with you since I don’t even know you or where you live or go to church. It just isn’t fruitful for either of us without some context and this is, after all, your website. It has never been my intent to change your mind about your doctrinal convictions.

    What I AM interested in is having you speak truthfully about my friends in the CCO and those running Jubilee. That in your efforts to expose bad stuff you say what is bad correctly.

    SO:

    2. You have said, above, that CCO believes (and I quote) “man (with God’s help) will save the world.”

    I think that is a wrong thing to say about the CCO and you have not shown it. You say I should see the posts, but all you do is assert this over and over, even as I’ve asked you to document it.

    And, you ask how citing that one “core purpose” (out of context of the others that stand beside it. by the way) can be untruthful.

    Yvonne–what are you thinking with this reply? I didn’t say you misquoted the CCO statement. The statement as it stands isn’t untruth (what an odd thing to accuse me of thinking. Man, talk about missing what is said…I never suggested you made that up or misquoted it.) What was untrue—and, again, here, now–is what you SAID about it.

    (Your trying to deflect my strong accusation that you are speaking untruthfully is really an odd debating style, speaking of logical fallacies. As if saying that because you printed the CCO statement accurately that excuses the inaccuracies of what you said ABOUT it. THAT is what is wrong.)

    You said that one core purpose shows that CCO believes that mankind (with God’s help) will save the world/culture.

    And THAT is the crux of the disagreement. You have failed to show that that statement implies what you accuse them of. I say it does not show that at all.

    You have at least now added “with God’s help” which seems to be a tip of the hat towards a more honest way of saying it. I guess I should honor that. Since you have added that, you’ve taken a small step away from the outrageous dishonesty of what you said before (that mankind–without God, apparently–save the world or redeem the culture.) So I suppose I am grateful that you’ve changed your diagnosis a bit. You should noted that you were adding this phrase in, apologized for having said it inaccurately before, and we could have celebrated this small step towards undoing your false charges.

    YET, you continue this same wrong direction by saying that CCO/Jubilee thinks that “we” do any saving.

    I have said over and over and over that we do NOT believe that.

    You say I attack you, but what I’m doing is insisting that you prove your claims. You say I’ve committed a logical fallacy, but I have not.

    I am insisting that you are twisting the truth, adding statements about the CCO that that they have not said, and never would. They don’t say it the way you have because they don’t believe it that way—they do NOT believe than mankind saves anything. It cannot be fairly deduced from their core statement. The nicest way of saying that is that you are reading into it, presuming that. Another way of saying it is that you are just making it up.

    Lastly: I don’t really care if we agree on this, as I really only want you to speak fairly about what the CCO believes.

    But, as an aside, for the fun of it: I know folks who believe, as you do, that this world is bound for burning up. That there is no connection whatsoever between the new creation and the old. I understand which texts imply that, and in my study I’ve compared them with other texts that imply otherwise. Anyone who has studied this, it seems to me, would be honest about those texts that may suggest either side. I’ve learned which greek words are used in which passages, and which denote a “new” creation and which denote a “renewed” creation. Your vast insistence that there are NO texts whatsoever is just so much bluster and bombast and, I’d say, a bit foolhardy, since many very serious and learned Bible students disagree. If we were friends, or had the Bible out on our laps in a room together, we could call out passages and look them up together. If you know the Word as well as you claim, you know which verses I’m thinking of. A little humility might be helpful indicating an awareness of how many Bible verses come into this kind of a discussion.

    And, I’d ask you to consider the logic of your position that IF God is going to fully burn this world, any cultural activity is therefore wrong to pursue (which I believe is your position, is it not?) I am not exactly sure what you think about, say, going to college or getting a job, about recyling or praying for a cure for cancer and the like. Do you believe in eating with better nutrition or helping clean up your downtown if there is an opportunity to do that? Do you care, just for instance, that some of your brothers and sisters in Appalachia, in Bible believing churches, are having their moutaintops destroyed by bad policies of the coal companies and it is ruining their water and they’ve asked others to help protect them from this ravage of their homeland? In day to day living can’t Christians believe it is faithful to be good citizens, work for better schools, protest stores that sell porn or donate money to the SCPA or hope to protect farmlands? That is, until Jesus returns (as we both think He will) isn’t it still logical to want to honor him with “good works” (I’m not citing the passages since you know them in Matthew and Ephesians.) I think your statement (if I understood it) that cultural betterment or social concern is somehow irrelevant because God will destroy this earth is itself not a faithful bit of logic. Why does God tell us to love our neighbors, serve the poor, help our enemies, steward the earth, invest our resources, be reconciled to others–why all this human, ordinary, social, cultural stuff, unless God wants us to do it “until he comes.”

    So, I guess I would say that even if we disagree on the nature of the end times, we should agree that if the Bible tells us to do something (feed the poor; stand against injustice) or if doing something is loving (working against bad laws that hurt your neighbor) then it could be legitimate, even if only for this season of history. Your condemnation of social concerns and a hope for social betterment because of your view of the end times, it seems to me, isn’t necessary. One can work to make the world better for our neighbors as an act of love and do it in God’s name and in Christ’s ways—while proclaiming the gospel of salvation, of course. Do you really think that is all that bad to do? Have you been a member of something like a PTO if you have children? Ever volunteer at the local nursing home? I am sure you have done nice things like this over the years, and it seems like one’s view of the end times should make you hate doing ordinary stuff. Do you disagree?

    Anyway, that is my view, that you could agree that some social betterment is a nice and good and commendable thing, even if you think the world will end soon.

    But, as I said, I’m not really that concerned with trying to change your theology. That is just an interesting topic to consider, and I”d love to hear your view. But ONLY if you aren’t ugly about it, saying things that are unfair or untrue about others.

    I am not out to change your mind about doctrine. I only want you to ask you to change your behavior in your habit of saying things about the CCO that are patently false. Doing so is unethical. And this assertion that they think they can save the world, even with God’s help, is just flat out wrong.

    Also, you say, fairly, this time, that this view of the CCO (which you distorted) is “prominent in liberal/Dominionist/emergent? theologies.

    Thanks for saying it that way; again this is a large improvement. Before you said that CCO was teaching this stuff, that it has crept in, that they have been influenced by Kingdom Now or whatever, which was just silly. CCO isn’t anywhere near Dominionist or social gospel theology. To say, as you do here, that those themes are found in those views is fair and perhaps true. I can’t complain aboutthe way you said that. I only wish you would have said it that way before, instead of the foolishly untrue way you said it before.

    Does that little switch in the way you said it mean you’re repenting just a little. I hope. Thanks.

    • Byron,

      We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I have said and I have given all the clarification to you that I am willing to do.

      My battle is not with you. (2 Cor. 10)

  7. Yvonne,

    I am sorry that you are giving up on this, but I do thank you for your endurance. I still maintain that you have spoken hurtfully and that you have confused your concerns about bad doctrine (commendable) with accusations that are utterly without merit. I think it is a shame.

    One thing that I wish would have come out is if you ever talked to anybody in leadership of the CCO? Do you have any evidence of trying to understand any of this first hand? It would be helpful to those who read you to know how well you’ve researched these particular accusations.
    We don’t know because you’ve never said, even though you’ve been asked often. I don’t know if it is fully fair of me, but I can only surmise that you haven’t. It seems reasonable to suppose that if you had, you’d have said so. You could have reported a conversation you had with any of the principles, but you never did. It would be wrong to say therefore that you haven’t, since we don’t know. But you sure haven’t been forthcoming about your accusations and allegations, except by way of secondary sources, like the authors I’ve reviewed or two or three speakers they’ve scheduled over the last 30 years that you find wanting. Large allegations, little substantiation. And now you say you can’t do any more. Sad.

    I invite anyone who is following this to check out the CCO’s core purposes (all of them) and statement of faith and see for yourself. Call up the directors or leaders and say, “Hey, we heard you think that mankind can save the planet” or “Some anonymous bloggers are writing that you are influenced by the social gospel” or “Somebody has accused you of teaching young people that they themselves can redeem the culture.” Tell them you heard that and see what they say. They will be astonished since it couldn’t be farther from the facts. Seek the truth. Ask around. See if what Yvonne has said is even close to being true.


Categories

%d bloggers like this: