Felt needs bad?

[BandGuy]

I've been following the discussion about "felt needs" and a few random thoughts popped in my mind:
1.  Are felt needs always a bad thing?
2.  For example, if we sing the hymn "Holy Holy Holy", we are certainly saying something about God and His nature.  But why is it important for us to know about the holiness of God?  Is it because we have a felt need to trust in the holiness, goodness and righteousness of God? Are not, then, our felt needs important to understanding and applying our theology?
3. If you then say that some felt needs are OK, but just in proportion, then who decides what's too much and by what standard?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've been following the discussion about "felt needs" and a few random thoughts popped in my mind:
1.  Are felt needs always a bad thing?
2.  For example, if we sing the hymn "Holy Holy Holy", we are certainly saying something about God and His nature.  But why is it important for us to know about the holiness of God?  Is it because we have a felt need to trust in the holiness, goodness and righteousness of God? Are not, then, our felt needs important to understanding and applying our theology?
3. If you then say that some felt needs are OK, but just in proportion, then who decides what's too much and by what standard?

To me, this is an easy one.  Any recognition or diagnoses of felt needs should be always placed within the context of looking to Christ for the answers to the need, and in doing so, we emphasize to those whose needs are met that they give Him the glory for the remedy.  Of course the "need" should be truly a need, and not merely a foolish misplaced desire.

 

[BandGuy]

Analyze away then:

How He Loves:  felt need and who meets the need?

 

[subllibrm]

I've been following the discussion about "felt needs" and a few random thoughts popped in my mind:
1.  Are felt needs always a bad thing?
2.  For example, if we sing the hymn "Holy Holy Holy", we are certainly saying something about God and His nature.  But why is it important for us to know about the holiness of God?  Is it because we have a felt need to trust in the holiness, goodness and righteousness of God? Are not, then, our felt needs important to understanding and applying our theology?
3. If you then say that some felt needs are OK, but just in proportion, then who decides what's too much and by what standard?

To me, this is an easy one.  Any recognition or diagnoses of felt needs should be always placed within the context of looking to Christ for the answers to the need, and in doing so, we emphasize to those whose needs are met that they give Him the glory for the remedy.  Of course the "need" should be truly a need, and not merely a foolish misplaced desire.

So would you agree that recognizing a person's "need" enough to engage in conversation with them about it is appropriate and a positive?

 

[BandGuy]

I think that was my point.

 

[ALAYMAN]

In the 1980s, AntiCCM advocates rejected "People Need the Lord"

... so much for felt needs if real needs are rejected.

Me and ALAYWIFE just sung this song in church Sunday, and have done so several times in the past.  Maybe your flavor of IFB(x) experience is a bit more extreme than anything I've ever been associated with.

So would you agree that recognizing a person's "need" enough to engage in conversation with them about it is appropriate and a positive?

Not only would I agree, I'd say it is wise and relevant <gasp> to building a bridge to the gospel.

 

[subllibrm]

In the 1980s, AntiCCM advocates rejected "People Need the Lord"

... so much for felt needs if real needs are rejected.

Me and ALAYWIFE just sung this song in church Sunday, and have done so several times in the past.  Maybe your flavor of IFB(x) experience is a bit more extreme than anything I've ever been associated with.

So would you agree that recognizing a person's "need" enough to engage in conversation with them about it is appropriate and a positive?

Not only would I agree, I'd say it is wise and relevant <gasp> to building a bridge to the gospel.

I would say that the conclusion then is that felt needs are good in that they give us opportunity to share Christ. It would then seem that a wise preacher would address felt needs as a part of his overall message planning.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It was sung in Maranatha's chapel service 1986ish. The song was banned right away. Unfortunately, the singer didn't sing in chapel again.

Not exactly as extreme as a Hyles variety.

Well, all I have is my anecdotal experience, which is 2 different Hyles pastors that didn't have any particular problem with identifying with their alma mater.  Neither one would have a problem with that song, so as always, I'd advise that we not jump to hasty generalizations about somebody's training/background.

I would say that the conclusion then is that felt needs are good in that they give us opportunity to share Christ. It would then seem that a wise preacher would address felt needs as a part of his overall message planning.

I agree with both sentiments, but I would say that you haven't gone far enough.  I read a book by Brian Chappell some time ago titled "Christ Centered Preaching".  In that book he said the evangelist/preachers's responsibility was to look into the text and find the FCF (Fallen Condition Focus).  That was just another way to say "felt needs" of human kind.  His exact words were that this FCF serves as a bridge to reach the hearer.  That's pretty much what you said.  The differnce is, at least in so far as preaching is concerned, is that you let the text determine the need.  And if a preacher is balanced and thorough to preach the whole counsel then he will deal with "felt needs" appropriately. 

Now if you are talking about a one-on-one situation where you see somebody has a FCF that is obviously displaying itself, and you are able to address that with them in order to meet their need, that's all good too.  Where I would suggest that something more be clarified is that the need should be viewed not as an end in itself to be cured, but that the person of Christ be the referenced remedy, otherwise it does become in danger of coming closer to a form of the social gospel.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Well, all I have is my anecdotal experience, which is 2 different Hyles pastors that didn't have any particular problem with identifying with their alma mater.  Neither one would have a problem with that song, so as always, I'd advise that we not jump to hasty generalizations about somebody's training/background.

Was this their position in the 80's or is this more of a recent position on an old CCM song?

 

[subllibrm]

It was sung in Maranatha's chapel service 1986ish. The song was banned right away. Unfortunately, the singer didn't sing in chapel again.

Not exactly as extreme as a Hyles variety.

Well, all I have is my anecdotal experience, which is 2 different Hyles pastors that didn't have any particular problem with identifying with their alma mater.  Neither one would have a problem with that song, so as always, I'd advise that we not jump to hasty generalizations about somebody's training/background.

I would say that the conclusion then is that felt needs are good in that they give us opportunity to share Christ. It would then seem that a wise preacher would address felt needs as a part of his overall message planning.

I agree with both sentiments, but I would say that you haven't gone far enough.  I read a book by Brian Chappell some time ago titled "Christ Centered Preaching".  In that book he said the evangelist/preachers's responsibility was to look into the text and find the FCF (Fallen Condition Focus).  That was just another way to say "felt needs" of human kind.  His exact words were that this FCF serves as a bridge to reach the hearer.  That's pretty much what you said.  The differnce is, at least in so far as preaching is concerned, is that you let the text determine the need.  And if a preacher is balanced and thorough to preach the whole counsel then he will deal with "felt needs" appropriately. 

Now if you are talking about a one-on-one situation where you see somebody has a FCF that is obviously displaying itself, and you are able to address that with them in order to meet their need, that's all good too.  Where I would suggest that something more be clarified is that the need should be viewed not as an end in itself to be cured, but that the person of Christ be the referenced remedy, otherwise it does become in danger of coming closer to a form of the social gospel.

Not a single thing to disagree with in what you posted.

I am still trying to figure out how a preacher would find himself speaking to the felt need of better orgasms though.  :-\





























































8)































;D

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I am still trying to figure out how a preacher would find himself speaking to the felt need of better orgasms though.  :-\

CCM.  It only works for women, though. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Was this their position in the 80's or is this more of a recent position on an old CCM song?

That's a very good and insightful question bro, and hard to answer dogmatically or with certainty since I didn't know either of them prior to 1999.  From what I know of their ministry growths and trajectory, they may have at one time been a little more guarded against songs like "People need the Lord".  But what I know of them now, and during the time of my relationship with them, they are/were not as rigid (nor stupid) as some of the craziness I've heard mentioned on here.

I am still trying to figure out how a preacher would find himself speaking to the felt need of better orgasms though.

I know you were mostly joking with the statement above, but there are two possibilities for his extreme language/exaggeration.  1) Hyperbole reinforces the point of how foolhearty he believed the philosophy of felt needs to be (ie, where does it end?).  2) Some people have made "sex tips" the focus of their sermon series (Mark Driscoll, Ed Young Jr, etc)

 

[subllibrm]

I am still trying to figure out how a preacher would find himself speaking to the felt need of better orgasms though.  :-\

CCM.  It only works for women, though.

Then you would think that some of these IFBx pastors would be all in favor of their secretaries or librarians listening to it!  8)

 

[subllibrm]

Was this their position in the 80's or is this more of a recent position on an old CCM song?

That's a very good and insightful question bro, and hard to answer dogmatically or with certainty since I didn't know either of them prior to 1999.  From what I know of their ministry growths and trajectory, they may have at one time been a little more guarded against songs like "People need the Lord".  But what I know of them now, and during the time of my relationship with them, they are/were not as rigid (nor stupid) as some of the craziness I've heard mentioned on here.

I am still trying to figure out how a preacher would find himself speaking to the felt need of better orgasms though.

I know you were mostly joking with the statement above, but there are two possibilities for his extreme language/exaggeration.  1) Hyperbole reinforces the point of how foolhearty he believed the philosophy of felt needs to be (ie, where does it end?).  2) Some people have made "sex tips" the focus of their sermon series (Mark Driscoll, Ed Young Jr, etc)

Like I said earlier, I have never run into that as a Sunday morning worship service sermon topic. I don't doubt there are books written on the subject but never heard it from the pulpit.

We even went to a marriage confernece with a seesion devoted to sex(  ) and that wasn't in the syllabus.