Rubel Shelly/Dallas Willard: Philosophers and Scriptures.

Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 25th, 2005, 5:14 am #1

We have looked at several of Rubel’s sermons after which he has quoted or referenced Dallas Willard’s work. There are thoughts in Rubel’s sermons that can also be found in the works of Dallas Willard.

Several years ago Rubel preached a lesson on “The Sermon on the Mount.” A short time later Steve Flatt memorized and presented the same lesson to Madison. If you look at Dallas Willard’s works you can find some similarities of it there also.

It appears that Rubel is a close student of the works of Dallas Willard. Since these similarities exist we thought that in this thread we might do a little comparing of Rubel and Dallas both personally and doctrinally.

I will begin by warning you that sometimes Dallas is for this, other times he is against it. I have posted a partial interview with Dallas Willard on another thread in which he seems to be warning against entertainment in the church. Yet in another interview he is suggestion showing movies at church. So make of this what you will.

Let’s begin by seeing who Dallas Willard is. These are excerpts from an interview by Hope McPherson.

Q: Given that philosophy, do you see the secular university, the University of Southern California, as a good place to be?

Dallas Willard: Well, I think it is. I'm not here by my good sense because, truthfully, I was pastoring a church and teaching school when I became so convinced of my ignorance about God and the soul that I thought I was a public hazard. That's when I went to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin. I didn't intend to become a philosophy professor or any kind of professor. I thought I would study a few years and then return to the pastorate. But I seemed to be led onward and I did finish the degree. I hadn't even intended to do a degree -- just study for my own benefit.

After I finished my Ph.D., they invited me to stay on the following year as a member of the faculty. During that year, the Lord said to me that if I stay in the church, I will be limited to the church and the university would be closed to me. If I went into the university, on the other hand, the churches would be open to me.

Jimmy comments: Notice that in this interview the Doctor says right up front “…the Lord said to me…” The man claims a direct contact to the Lord.

Like Rubel and the “change agents” they hear things that have not be said. They see things that are not there. And they read things that have not been written. And all of this is okay because the “Lord” speaks to them.

Now let’s look at Rubel. “Yes, there are a couple of stirrings…One is to be very directly involved in the training of young men and women for ministry…I was not prepared for the thing I wound up doing for all my adult life…Christian colleges and seminaries are doing a good job in most cases…there is a great need for some people who have invested our lives in local churches to be involved in training would-be ministers in the real-life, practical, and hands-on side of what to expect. And the second is to participate in planting a new church somewhere - starting from scratch and working off a blank sheet of paper.

Dallas Willard says by staying at the University churches would be open to him. Now Rubel laments that he was not prepared for the things that he had been doing all of his adult life and so he wants to start training “young” men and women for ministry and next he wants to help plant a church – starting from scratch.

Sound as if Rubel would like to be Dallas, don’t it? You must admit that both men want to be bigger then the “church”. Both men want to influence “young” men and women in the church. Also keep in mind that the Lord spoke to Dallas. Now let’s see if the Lord spoke to Rubel.

Dan Dozier, On behalf of the shepherds… we announced that we would spend January being still and listening for the voice of God. We had no idea God might say to some of us things that the rest of us did not want to hear… It was clear to us that God had spoken and that it was not appropriate for us to try again to steer Rubel away from God's leading.

Shelly said it like this, “Doing something to which I believe God is calling.”

Similarities of the two men in this post:

Both men claim to be God called.

Both men want to be bigger then the church.

Both men want to train “young” men and women.

Neither man was prepared for the local work of preaching.

Both are Philosophers; Rubel hold doctorate in philosophy from Vanderbilt.

In Christian Love,




April 25th, 2005, 3:17 pm #2

Jimmy, you are so right about the similarities. We get some idea of the views of Dallas Willard in an interview article entitled “Rethinking Evangelism” in the Winter, 2001 issue of Cutting Edge magazine. (Cutting Edge is a Church Planting quarterly newsletter produced by the National Church Planting Task force of Vineyard USA.)

<Willard> “Pluralism and other Faiths
The church has always sought to control who's "in" and who's "out." It has tried to hold a monopoly on salvation. But in my view that judgment does not belong to the church at all.

I personally believe there are going to be people outside the mainstream church in heaven, but they won't be there for that reason. There are going to be a lot of Baptists not in heaven, and they won't not be there because they are Baptists. It will be because they have learned to love and honor and trust Jesus Christ. It's possible to learn to do that in a very misguided organization, and it's possible to not do that in a very correct organization. God looks on the heart.”

<Joel> Yes, Willard’s views dovetail very nicely with Shelly’s views on "The Community" in his sermon on 7/21/02, an excerpt of which I had previously posted on the "Change Agent Rubel Shelly and the early church thread". I will repost a pertinent portion here for the ease of comparison.

<Shelly> “This sort of thing – identifying a single event or ceremony as the badge of Christian identity and spiritual kinship(speaking here of different forms of baptism or nonbaptism) – is fully consistent with modernity. It provides a formula for including some and excluding others. It draws a clear line between those deemed worthy of acceptance and those to be left out of the community. I’m not at all sure this is how things worked in the earliest days of the church."

<Joel> As you can see, Willard and Shelly share the common ecumenical belief that all religious organizations believing in Jesus Christ, including any denomination (or as Willard puts it, even MISGUIDED organizations,) and the Lord's Church, is as good as another, as long the member loves, honors, and trusts Jesus Christ. We're all just part of one big Community; the practices and beliefs of the various denominations and the Lord's Church comprising the Community matter not.

While God does look at the heart, Christ has commanded us to keep his commandments and thereby show our love for Him (John 14:15) Keeping his commandments is how one shows his love for Christ. Obeying this command is not possible when you are a member of a body which does not keep his commandments (a.k.a. MISGUIDED organizations).


April 25th, 2005, 5:53 pm #3

It seems to me your time would be better spent proclaimimg the Gospel of Jesus Christ, instead of trying to tear down others. Jimmy, do you know God? His love for you may surprise you. I will pray that you come to know the author of your Bible.

Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 25th, 2005, 9:34 pm #4

Dear PMW.

Thank you for taking both the time to read and reply to our post. I thank God for people such as you who care enough to share your concerns.

I do wish that you would not hide in darkness as to your identity but come in light by revealing who you are. After all, if you are a child of light you should not hide the light under a bushel. If your goal is to bring light to those who read this board, then let your light shine. A child of God should never live in fear even when posting replies on a publicly read board. I promise that you will have nothing to fear from anyone here.

Your first comment: “…time would be better spent proclaiming the Gospel…instead of…tear down other.”

<Jimmy> The Gospel according to John takes up one book. John wrote four other books. Have you read first, second and third John? Are these three books accounts of the Gospel? Should John have written only one Book, i.e., the Gospel? It is not for us to say. God inspired John to write all that he wrote. Are you disappointed in John’s writing?

Pmw’s second comment: Jimmy, do you know God?

<Jimmy> Yes, I know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How do I know Him? The Bible tells me about Him.

Has God ever spoken unto me? No. There are a lot of people who have made the claim that God has spoken to them. Joseph Smith, Dallas Willard, the shepherds at Woodmont and many others make this claim. Do you make that claim also, pmw?

The scriptures say, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” Heb. 1:1-2 (KJV).

Do you believe the Bible or man?

Pmw’s comments: “His love for you may surprise you.”

<Jimmy> Yes! God’s love for us does surprise me! The love of God is FOUND IN CHRIST JESUS, “Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:39 (KJV) AND WHOSOEVER KEEPS HIS WORD, “But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected:.. 1John 2:5 (KJV).

Pmw says: “I will pray for you.”

<Jimmy> Thanks for you prayers. It is wonderful to know that someone that I do not even know is praying for me. I pray for many things and one of them is for the people who read these boards.

Now I have a question for you pmw. “Do you know God?” Tell us how you come to know God.

I offer an eight lesson Bible correspondence course if you would be interested in taken it. I know that you have a love for God or you would not be reading and replying to these posts. I also believe that you have a love for mankind because your post is a “kindly” worded post. But I am not sure how much Bible knowledge you have.

Hey, a Bible study would be great! Click my name and send me an e-mail. We can pray and study the Bible together.

Oh yes, There is no charge for the lessons and please do not send a donation. It will not be accepted. I include this information because I have had one student ask me how much does it cost.

As Ken would say "GIVE YOU MONEY TO THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS" the gospel is to be FREE.

In Christian Love,



Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 26th, 2005, 5:23 am #5

Joel thanks for such an excellent post. It is important to learn what “well” a preacher has been drinking from. Just as Rubel drank from the “well” of the “change agents” until he finally became one.

I believe that we may discover that drinking from the well of “philosophy” may be the reason for much of Rubel’s disbelief about certain parts of the Bible.

We began our study with a definition of the words philosophy and philosopher as taken from the Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged Second Edition.

Philosophy: 1.) originally, love of wisdom or knowledge. 2.) a study of the processes governing thought and conduct; theory of investigation of the principles of law that regulate the universe and underlie all knowledge and reality; included in the study are aesthetics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, etc.

Philosopher: 1.) a person who studies or is learned in philosophy. 2.) a person who lives and thinks according to a system of philosophy. 3.) a person who meets all events, whether favorable or unfavorable, with calmness and composure. 4.) an alchemist, magician, etc.

Among the Greeks the word was “philosophos”, from “philos” meaning “loving” and “sophos” meaning “wise”.

We have already noticed some similarities between Rubel and Dallas. Let it be understood that since both men are philosophers it is understandable that their train of thought and conclusions could be the same when both are addressing the same topic at the same time. When one such as Dallas has addressed the topic several years ago and Rubel has addressed it only recently and both have the same conclusions one has to wonder did Rubel reach his conclusion without any input from Dallas.

Do you not find it a little strange that both men begin their ministries only to later proclaim their inadequacies of preparations? And the fact that Dallas revealed his short comings years ago, but Rubel revealed his short comings only recently?

Dallas Willard said, “I was pastoring a church and teaching school when I became so convinced of my ignorance about God and the soul that I thought I was a public hazard.”

Rubel say, “…I was not prepared for the thing I wound up doing for all my adult life.”

I cannot speak to Dallas. But I want to say to Rubel, “Rubel, how can you say that you were not prepared to preach the gospel?” You had Brother Thomas B. Warren at you side. Rubel, you had Brother Garland Elkins to help you. You had such blessings just being in the presences of these two men, let along all of the others preachers that knew and loved you.

I can name some men who are doing great things in the kingdom of God who never had the opportunities or leaders that you have had around you.

Rubel turned his back on Brother Elkins and Brother Warren and looks around and finds someone with a hard luck story about pastoring, but one who is popular in the University, such as Dallas Willard and he compares his past life as a minister with the past life of Dallas.

Dallas Willard says in my pastoring (<Jimmy> I assume that to include preaching) I was convinced of my ignorance of God…
Rube says I was NOT prepared for the thing I wound up doing…all of my adult life…<Jimmy> I suppose that to mean preaching as well as everything else?

Well, these are the two “thinkers” that we are discussion and comparing on this thread.

Because of the length of scroll it takes to explain something to “thinkers” we are going to take the next three post (with comments in between them) to put forth a logical argument in the form of a modus ponens.

There are 4 common argument forms; modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism. Arguments which have one of these forms will ALWAYS be valid, even though the statements in the argument may be false. Making a valid argument and arriving at truth ARE NOT one and the SAME!

We will be attempting to get this conclusion “therefore salvation is in Jesus Christ.” To get this conclusion our premises, both major and minor, will have to be true, at lest to the Bible believers. The philosopher will or may agree with the validity of the argument but he may chose not to accept the truthfulness of the conclusion or the truthfulness of either of the premises. Such is the sad state of the “philosopher”. The philosopher has to accept the formulas but DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

To prove this conclusion what would we use for a major premise? Don’t be bashful write in and help us out. More then one could do the job, but I am looking for a Biblical one. We will be looking for the minor premise later.

An argument is, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

Until our next post, check out the argument below.

In Christian Love,


The Argument Clinic

A reception desk in a sort of office building.
Receptionist: Yes, sir?

Man: I'd like to have an argument please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir, have you been here before...?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Man: Well, what would be the cost?

Receptionist: Yes, it's one pound for a five-minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

Man: Well, I think it's probably best of I start with the one and see how it goes from there. OK?

Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment... Mr. Du-Bakey's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory... Yes, try Mr. Barnard -- Room 12.

Man: Thank you.

[...] The man knocks on the door.
Mr Vibrating:(from within) Come in.

The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Mr Vibrating: I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.

Man: When?

Mr Vibrating: Just now!

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!

Man: You did not!

Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

Man: Oh, just a five minute one.

Mr Vibrating: Fine. (makes a note of it; the man sits down) Thank you. Anyway I did.

Man: You most certainly did not.

Mr Vibrating: Now, let's get one thing quite clear... I most definitely told you!

Man: You did not.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You did not.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!!

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: It is. You just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.

Man: Ooh, you did!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.

Man: You did, just then.

Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: Not at all.

Man: Now look!

Mr Vibrating:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.

Man: What?

Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.

Man: But I was just getting interested.

Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.

Man: That was never five minutes just now!

Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.

Man: No it wasn't.

Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

Man: What!?

Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on!

(Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
Mr Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: Oh. All right. (pays) There you are.

Mr Vibrating: Thank you.

Man: Well?

Mr Vibrating: Well what?

Man: That was never five minutes just now.

Mr Vibrating: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: I've just paid.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.

Man: I did! I did! I did!

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.

Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.

Mr Vibrating: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.

Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!

Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.

Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

Man: I've had enough of this.

Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

[From "Monty Python's Flying Circus: Just the Words, Volume 2",
episode 29.



April 26th, 2005, 3:36 pm #6

Hi Jimmy

After you started this thread I began to read some of Dallas Willards works. Dallas has a lot of good things to say. The problem that I have is he says one thing in one place and then "appears" to contradict it in another place.

I know that philosophers often see no black or white. But if no black or white exist how can they expect to arrive at truth? And if they cannot arrive at truth, how can they teach us about God?

Rubel used the expression "blurred lines of distinctions" in one of his sermons where he referenced Dallas Willard. If Rubel views the Bible, or any part of the Bible, as "blurred lines of distinctions" should he even be teaching the Word of God?

Dallas is like Rubel in this aspect, one should not draw a conclusion from what Dallas has said or has written. One must wait and read what he will write or say tomorrow. Remember the comment made in the Rubel/Wes sermon? "…ask me tomorrow and I may have a different take on it."

You listed one example in the beginning of this thread pertaining to the church and entertainment. I went to the thread "What happened at Madison this week…" and read your post there that contained the comments of Dallas. It does "seem" that Dallas would be, at the least, discouraging entertainment in the church. I have not found his comments that seem to "uphold" entertainment in the church. Could you post them for us?

I have read where he says a person that does not even know Christ can go to heaven. Would you comment on that please.

In Christ,


Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 26th, 2005, 11:59 pm #7

Good post George. I will answer your questions with my next post. Thanks for you patience.

Dallas Willard writes the forward to Ruth Haley Barton’s latest book “Invitation to Solititude and Silence.”

We know who Dallas and Rubel are but who is Ruth Haley Barton? Ruth Haley Barton is the former associate director of spiritual formation at WILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH. Barton is a spiritual director, teacher and retreat leader trained through the Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation (Washington, D.C.) and the Pathways Center for Spiritual Leadership (Nashville, Tennessee). She is cofounder of The Transforming Center, a community of Christian men and women who shape and care for the souls of leaders--equipping them to guide their churches and organizations in becoming spiritually transforming communities that discern and do the will of God.

Her other work includes An Ordinary Day with Jesus: Experiencing the Reality of God in Your Everyday Life (a spiritual formation curriculumn coauthored with John Ortberg, WILLOW CREEK RESOURCES) and The Truths That Free Us: A Woman's Calling to Spiritual Transformation.

We have shown time and again that Rubel is a “change agent” now we have a connection of Dallas Willard to Ruth Barton who WAS an associate director of one of the ministries at WILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH. This is a “home” base for the “CHANGE AGENTS.” Later we may show Rick Warrens involvement.

Let’s notice some more about Ruth. Ruth and John Ortberg put together a resource package and explained it this way:

ORDINARY DAY WITH JESUS KIT. In the routine moments of an ordinary can experience the reality of God's presence. Take the first steps toward that kind of life today. Here is a resource designed to show you how with John Ortberg, a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, and RUTH Haley Barton, a spiritual director, retreat leader, and teacher in the area of spiritual formation.

The practices and teaching detailed here can literally change your life, one day at a time. The curriculum guides and equips both leaders and participants in concrete ways to embrace the very real person of Jesus Christ in everyday life.

You'll learn how to INVITE CHRIST TO WORK ALONESIDE you; recognize and HEAR THE HOLY SPIRIT’S VOICE; use the spiritual pathways that best CONNECT YOU TO GOD; eliminate hurry and simplify your pace of life; wake up and go to sleep in Jesus' name; open everyday relationships to him, learning even from difficult people; spend soul-replenishing time alone with God; and plan, commit to, and actually experience an entire day with Jesus. The kit features eight sessions for use in a variety of formats:

<Jimmy> If any of the above claims were true, why must one BUY one of their KIT to experience it? the VERL REAL PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST? Hear the Holy Spirit’s voice? Connect to God?

I don’t want to get too side tracked from our subject. I just wanted to share this with you so you could see the involvement of Dallas Willard with a former Willow Creek employer so as to show that Dallas Willard does have some influence over the “change agent” movement. FYI, Ruth still holds seminars at Willow Creek.

In Christian Love,



Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 27th, 2005, 5:44 am #8

Thanks for you patience George. I am back.

<George> If Rubel views the Bible, or any part of the Bible, as "blurred lines of distinctions" should he even be teaching the Word of God?

<Jimmy> Rubel teaches parts of the Bible and Rubel preaches “what” Rubel would like for the Bible to say. Rubel is a change agent. Rubel sees and reads things that are not in the Bible. We have shown you in past posts how that Rubel will read a word, ex. “deacon”, and immediately began to talk about “special servants or women.”

Rubel is one of the reasons for this web site. We have taken some of Rubel’s sermons and literally “picked” them apart to show you how he will exchange one word for another word with a different meaning. He will misquote or just say something that is not even related to his subject.

<George> I have not found his (Dallas Willard’s) comments that seem to "uphold" entertainment in the church. Could you post them for us?

<Jimmy> Here they are. Dallas was asked the question “How do we address the real needs of people?

<Dallas Willard> Use movies. Three come to mind immediately: Pleasantville, The Cider House Rules, and American Beauty. These are in-depth studies of the subtleness of evil, and people go to these movies and connect with them. Now that’s what we need to be talking about when we talk about sin.

For example, all three of these are roaringly antinomian movies. They are all against law. In The Cider House Rules, it’s almost ironic. Here you have a movie, the point of which is, "Rules are no good." But if certain rules had been followed, the terrible things that happened in the movie—incest and murder—would not have happened! When I saw that movie, I thought, "Could the guy who directed this possibly not have understood what he did?"

We should take a look at Friends or Seinfeld, or these other things that occupy people’s minds and talk about it, from the pulpit, in small groups, in our teaching.

<Jimmy> Notice that he says “from the pulpit.” He says “we need to be talking about when we talk about sin.”

When he says “from the pulpit” he has to be talking about “at church.”
The problem that I have with this is that he made both statements, i.e. one for it and one against it, in the same interview. One was close to the beginning and one was near the end of this interview.
<George> I have read where he says a person that does not even know Christ can go to heaven. Would you comment on that please?
<Jimmy> I am going to give you a couple of Dallas Willard’s quotes. I also remind you to re-read Joel’s post on this thread. He writes a good post.

<Dallas Willard> I’m not willing to be in a position of saying that one who has not heard of the historical Jesus cannot go to heaven.
<Jimmy> Is he saying “saved without obedience to the gospel?” Yes, but even more! Dallas is saying saved without even hearing the gospel.
<Dallas Willard> The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say "he can't save them." I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can.

It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: "There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved."
<Jimmy> Dallas makes the gospel totally useless. Notice how he separates the gospel from Jesus? Dallas makes Jesus the savoir separate and apart from the gospel. What kind of “thinking” is that for a Doctor of “thinking?” The gospel according to Dallas Willard is just a waste of our time. You can see what Willard thinks about “preachers.” Maybe that is why he did not return to the Baptist pulpit.

Why would Dallas preach the gospel if he believes God saves people who neither hear nor obey the gospel? According to Dallas all who preach the gospel are just time wasters. There is no need to preach the gospel.

By the way, why would someone who is trained and schooled in “thinking” not be able to realize that there is no Baptist church in scripture? Maybe another comparison is found here between he and Rubel. Maybe they both see “things” that are not there.
One more quote from Dallas. I am including this one for Ken because it is about TEN.

<Dallas Willard> It is pathetic, for example, that you cannot get people to give a tithe. If the Christians in this country tithed, the church would be awash in money and there would not be a single legitimate social need that couldn’t be met, at least in financial terms.

Ministers would be directing the community because everyone would realize that they are the only ones who know what’s going on.
<Jimmy> Dallas is all for the TEN. Anyone who disagrees with him is PATHETIC.

Notice Dallas’s last comment. Here we have the “Community Preacher.” I wonder if he is including Rubel in that statement?

<Late addition>I just looked at Rubel’s last Lord’s Day sermon, April 24, 2005, and look at who Rubel quotes from, “To echo the words of DALLAS WILLARD, the bumper sticker “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” has become more of an excuse for negligence than a statement of humility for too many of us.”

In Christian Love,




April 27th, 2005, 5:32 pm #9

Is Rubel a church of Christ preacher? If yes, I thought coC congregations were seperate from each other. How is this your business? If he is not a coC, then how is his preaching any of your business?

Jimmy Wren
Jimmy Wren

April 27th, 2005, 11:20 pm #10

Wes it is good to hear from you even if you are using a fake ID.

Why not use your real name and computer. Why use the computers at Vanderbilt?

Why not just defend what Rubel preaches for truth instead of complaining about my comments?

Does he preach truth according to the written Word of God? If yes, tell us about it!

Did you, Wes, preach truth when you said "ask me tomorrow, I may have a different take on it."

Both of us could benifit greatly from a discussion of the "change agent" Rubel Shelly.

To answer your question "Is Rubel a Church of Christ preacher. NO!
He preaches for a Community named Woodmont Hills. There is no "Church of Christ" in that church's name.

You said "if not a coC, then how is it any of your business?"

Jimmy answers: Same as you. You may have a love for Rubel and do not like to see anyone expose him as a false teacher in public. Therfore you write me with the desire that I stop.

Well I have a love for the Lord and His Church and when I see someone trying to tear it down and pervert the teachings of the written Word of God I want them to stop, or change, and come back to the simple teachings of the truth. So I point out the errors in Rubel's sermons for all to see.

Some chose not to see it. So be it, but I must continue to defend TRUTH.

Now you may not be Wes. I just called you that, because you sent this post from Vanderbilt. So I assume that you know both Rubel and Wes.
If you believe that Ruble teaches truth, tell us about it!

In Christian Love,