Thought this was a good post on Groeschel's blog. He also did a sermon on it a couple weeks ago on the forgotten virtue of Honor. He talked about how in many other countries there are traditions on how to honor someone and it's part of their everyday culture, but in America we're a culture of dishonor and ordinary.


by Craig Groeschel
The Root of All Dishonor

The reason our culture is dishonoring is because people aren’t honoring God.

We are treating God as common or ordinary.

God is not the “big guy in the sky” or the “man upstairs.” He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

Jesus is not our “homeboy.” He is the risen and soon-returning King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

In Isaiah 29:13, The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”


It’s time we stop giving God lip service and give him the honor He is due.

I say "AMEN" to that.

Yes, amen.
In Luke 10:27 Jesus tells us: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' If we truly LOVE God, we will honor Him and as a result we will love our neighbors and also honor them.

Metro, that was very, very good.

And so we as Christians need to accept that atheists serve as among the most outstandingly shameful examples as to just who is bringing this great dishonor upon the United States of America?

Am I just supposed to give a "+1" to this post because Metro expects us all to praise Groeshel like he does? Don't such statements beg a bit of debate or discussion?

I think so.

I tend to live in the present rather than the past so I'm not inclined toward the position that the past is ever superior to the present--ever. After all, 2000 years ago, all the good people killed Jesus and I don't think there has been much more honor than that since.

Anybody care to defend the concept of the past being morally and ethically superior than the present? If so, please provide some data instead of just anecdotes. Individual expereince rarely represents anything other than individual expereince. When one discusses "lost values," one is defining the entirety of the human expereince, not merely individual expereince. Therefore, that which can be quantified seems far more relevant than quaint little stories of the picket fences and apple pies cooling in the kitchen window.

However, one thing which never seems to change is the idea that the world is degrading morally, ethically, and culturally.

The opposing view is that the world is always changing in superficial ways and that change is really threatening to people.

The past doesn't change therefore it is easy to cherry pick our memories in order to see it better than the far more chaotic present.

I'm 48 and I can remember hearing how the world was going to hell in a handbasket because all the good values were being tossed aside etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

Seems like honor, being subjective, always looks better in the grand "used to be" than it does now.

I'd go a bit farther and say, for every example of greed one finds today, one can find worse from the past. For ever act of cowardice, hypocrisy, venality, cruelty, sloth, gluttony, and all the other deadly sins one finds today, human society has worse.

I know that the things which are measurable which appear to represent moral and ethical standards--crime rates for example--tend to rise and fall over time. That would seem to represent a world were morals, ethics, and other measures of "honor" aren't in a constant downward spiral, but wax and wane due to a variety of complex issues.

Other things which can be measured--lifespan, child mortality, fatal disease rates--have all improved dramatically in my life span alone. Go back 100 years and one might as well be looking at the stone age.

Groeshel's hardly original concept of a degrading world seems myopic if not completely blind to how many ways the world has improved.

Or course, we don't ride around in horses and buggies much any more.

But then, we no longer live in a world saturated in horse manure like the "good old days"...except, of course, for the things preachers and other arbiters of "values" tend to issue forth in great abundance...

Am I just supposed to give a "+1" to this post because Metro expects us all to praise Groeshel like he does? Don't such statements beg a bit of debate or discussion?

I think so.

I tend to live in the present rather than the past so I'm not inclined toward the position that the past is ever superior to the present--ever. After all, 2000 years ago, all the good people killed Jesus and I don't think there has been much more honor than that since.

Anybody care to defend the concept of the past being morally and ethically superior than the present? If so, please provide some data instead of just anecdotes. Individual expereince rarely represents anything other than individual expereince. When one discusses "lost values," one is defining the entirety of the human expereince, not merely individual expereince. Therefore, that which can be quantified seems far more relevant than quaint little stories of the picket fences and apple pies cooling in the kitchen window.

Agree. I get so tired of reading someones rant about how there are no morals/ethics/discipline these days and how back in their younger days things were so much better. Then we usually get to read of some recent event that leads them to believe this even though it is just their opinion and not based on any real data. Crimes and wrongdoings have happened forever, its just now we get to hear the sensationalized stories of them constantly. Chances are if you grew up in some small American town 30 years ago, you wouldnt even hear about most heinous crimes that happened elsewhere in the country.

No way would I ever choose to live during some time in the past. There is nothing better or more promising than the now.

No way would I ever choose to live during some time in the past. There is
nothing better or more promising than the now.
That wasn't brought up in the post, ergo, it wasn't part of the topic. Is this
an attempt to side step the issue of honoring God?

That wasn't brought up in the post, ergo, it wasn't part of the topic. Is this
an attempt to side step the issue of honoring God?

It was brought up in a post, therefore it was part of the topic. Not trying to sidestep the issue of honoring God. I dont have much to say about it. Were you wanting my opinion on the issue?

It was brought up in a post, therefore it was part of the topic. Not trying to
sidestep the issue of honoring God. I don't have much to say about it. Were
you wanting my opinion on the issue?
No, I was wondering why the topic was changed.

However, one thing which never seems to change is the idea that the world is degrading morally, ethically, and culturally.

The opposing view is that the world is always changing in superficial ways and that change is really threatening to people.

The past doesn't change therefore it is easy to cherry pick our memories in order to see it better than the far more chaotic present.

I'm 48 and I can remember hearing how the world was going to hell in a handbasket because all the good values were being tossed aside etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

Seems like honor, being subjective, always looks better in the grand "used to be" than it does now.

I'd go a bit farther and say, for every example of greed one finds today, one can find worse from the past. For ever act of cowardice, hypocrisy, venality, cruelty, sloth, gluttony, and all the other deadly sins one finds today, human society has worse.

I know that the things which are measurable which appear to represent moral and ethical standards--crime rates for example--tend to rise and fall over time. That would seem to represent a world were morals, ethics, and other measures of "honor" aren't in a constant downward spiral, but wax and wane due to a variety of complex issues.

Other things which can be measured--lifespan, child mortality, fatal disease rates--have all improved dramatically in my life span alone. Go back 100 years and one might as well be looking at the stone age.

Groeshel's hardly original concept of a degrading world seems myopic if not completely blind to how many ways the world has improved.

Or course, we don't ride around in horses and buggies much any more.

But then, we no longer live in a world saturated in horse manure like the "good old days"...except, of course, for the things preachers and other arbiters of "values" tend to issue forth in great abundance...

Curious. Are you aware of the concept of entropy? That is, everything in the universe is going from a state of order to a state of disorder? I wonder if this does not also apply to society and individual cultures? As people become more sophisticated in their understandings of how the universe works, there also develop more and more differing views, therefore bringing more disorder into our commonly held beliefs/facts/world views. Just a thought.

That wasn't brought up in the post, ergo, it wasn't part of the topic. Is this
an attempt to side step the issue of honoring God?
Title of the post: The root of all dishonor.

Not, a generic human's don't honor god, but


The reason our culture is dishonoring is because people aren’t honoring God.
Implicit in this statement is the "our culture" is different from others.

Also, if failure to "honor God" in the way Groeshel defines is, in fact, "The Root" or the beginning of all dishonor, then that pretty well puts Groeshel in the place of defining for the rest of us--or at least Metro--who and what God is.

I would posit that the root of dishonor toward God is claiming to speak for him like Groeshel and PP do. That is my opinion. I find PP and Groeshel to have highly different interpretations of God, Jesus, the Bible, and life in general to be far enough different from mine as to represent some other religious figure entirely.

This statement also assumes the entirety of our culture is dishonorable. Really, nothing in our culture honors god? If you limit your definition to what happens at Life Church, I might be able to agree with that. However, I think this statement ridiculous and a disrespect to people who live honorable lives and lives which honor the version of God they worship.


We are treating God as common or ordinary.

God is not the “big guy in the sky” or the “man upstairs.” He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.
Aside from stealing this quote from a trucking company, I suppose all Life Chruch's slogans are honorable?

Lets throw some egotism in with the presumption.

Then, to tie it all up, a classic Groeshel proof text which edits the most important part of the verse:


They worship me in vain; / their teachings are but rules taught by men Hmmm, men like....Groeshel?

you spend wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more time attacking Groeschel than I've thought about the man in 11 years of attending the church. My views go far outside the walls of lifechurch by the way. Seems like you're the one Groeschel centric to me.

you spend wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more time attacking Groeschel than I've thought about the man in 11 years of attending the church. My views go far outside the walls of lifechurch by the way. Seems like you're the one Groeschel centric to me.
Dude, you start these threads and are constantly putting forth the advertisements for Groeschel's latest marketing scheme as the great words of truth from on high. Sorry I find them as lacking in meaning as you find them full of.

I'd have nothing to reply to if you didn't build the pedistal and put Groeschel on it with the expectation that everyone with greet him with the same awe that you have.

However, my last reply focused a bit too much on personality and not on the question which was my intention. Jimbo posed a serious response--in contrast to this one--and I never replied.

Curious. Are you aware of the concept of entropy? That is, everything in the universe is going from a state of order to a state of disorder? I wonder if this does not also apply to society and individual cultures? As people become more sophisticated in their understandings of how the universe works, there also develop more and more differing views, therefore bringing more disorder into our commonly held beliefs/facts/world views. Just a thought.
This is an interesting point. However, it is also a glass half full/half empty proposition. It depends of your predisposition. For example, I don't find conformity to social expectations particularly comforting nor a diversity of culture, opinion, or information to be chaotic.

As far as society in general is concerned, there isn't ever a point of stasis to begin with. In fact, the only thing that ever seems consistent is the impulse to romanticize the past. The past is static and one can pick the details one wants to compare more favorably to the present. This is a constant because folks tend to reaction to change--or chaos--in predictable ways. In the face of change, folks tend to look to elements of the past they deem changing and presume those things were a constant.

So, the assumption that societies move from stasis to chaos seems irreparably flawed. It seems to me that societies move from chaotic state to chaotic state in a constant whirling dervish of constant change.

This gets more and more unsettling as you age but only because folks tend to see a wider vista as they get older and that becomes increasingly disorienting.

At the same time, without that creatively destructive force of chaos, nothing ever improves. "Improvement" is subjective for certain, however, I prefer living in the now than the short and brutish lives our cave ancestors lived. I prefer dentistry and antibiotics to the slow painful deaths a tooth abscess caused a mere hundred years ago.

At the same time, the electronic leashes we have willingly adopted--and paid a pretty premium for--seem less appealing to me than many of the other trappings of modern life.

Also, even in the challenges we face--oil supply for example--there will come tomorrow's innovation, invention, and solutions. Problems demand solutions and human society rarely fails is solving them.

This is an optimist's view of the present and future I'll admit. However, I can't abide well by the sort of atrophied view point most folks tend to adopt past age 40 when the best years of life seem in the past and only chaos and death seem to be waiting in the future.

One of those things is true--death--but one doesn't have to accept living in the past as a preparatory state needed for the back 40 of life. Rage, Rage, against the dying of the light and all that.

Finally, if you want to be thermodynamic about social and cultural issues, you can't destroy energy, you can only convert it.

Rome didn't fall, it dispersed.

This is an interesting point. However, it is also a glass half full/half empty proposition. It depends of your predisposition. For example, I don't find conformity to social expectations particularly comforting nor a diversity of culture, opinion, or information to be chaotic.

As far as society in general is concerned, there isn't ever a point of stasis to begin with. In fact, the only thing that ever seems consistent is the impulse to romanticize the past. The past is static and one can pick the details one wants to compare more favorably to the present. This is a constant because folks tend to reaction to change--or chaos--in predictable ways. In the face of change, folks tend to look to elements of the past they deem changing and presume those things were a constant.

So, the assumption that societies move from stasis to chaos seems irreparably flawed. It seems to me that societies move from chaotic state to chaotic state in a constant whirling dervish of constant change.

This gets more and more unsettling as you age but only because folks tend to see a wider vista as they get older and that becomes increasingly disorienting.

At the same time, without that creatively destructive force of chaos, nothing ever improves. "Improvement" is subjective for certain, however, I prefer living in the now than the short and brutish lives our cave ancestors lived. I prefer dentistry and antibiotics to the slow painful deaths a tooth abscess caused a mere hundred years ago.

At the same time, the electronic leashes we have willingly adopted--and paid a pretty premium for--seem less appealing to me than many of the other trappings of modern life.

Also, even in the challenges we face--oil supply for example--there will come tomorrow's innovation, invention, and solutions. Problems demand solutions and human society rarely fails is solving them.

This is an optimist's view of the present and future I'll admit. However, I can't abide well by the sort of atrophied view point most folks tend to adopt past age 40 when the best years of life seem in the past and only chaos and death seem to be waiting in the future.

One of those things is true--death--but one doesn't have to accept living in the past as a preparatory state needed for the back 40 of life. Rage, Rage, against the dying of the light and all that.

Finally, if you want to be thermodynamic about social and cultural issues, you can't destroy energy, you can only convert it.

Rome didn't fall, it dispersed.

Worthy observations...now back to applying them to the topic. My personal view is that as a society becomes more and more sophisticated, educated and diverse in opinion, customs and mores, the less they sense a need for God. The Bible even speaks to this point in different places. Because God Himself doesn't force upon us a belief in Him, I would find it extremely presumptuous to even begin to try to "force" my own beliefs on anyone, but I'm sometimes up for a try to "persuade". Thanks for a cogent, considered reply.

Back at 'ya.

Level of education most definately correlates in a "need for [a] God" with the greater amount of education = less belief in higher powers. Studies have pretty consistantly shown this.

However, what are the underlying explinations? I don't think education causes a disbeleif in god. It seems more likely that those intellectually and tempramentally equiped for college level work are more likely to ponder the big "why" of the existance. All theologies get squishy when held up to rational scrutiny. There are too many fantastic or illogical arguments in all theological texts.

However, the percentage of educated people who remain adherents of one theology or another remains pretty consistant. How come? There's probably something inate in the human brain or religious activity satisfies a social/communal need.

At the same time, I'm not interested in dissuading anybody from which ever point of view they have. It's not my business to question anybody's faith.

Which isn't ever at the root of my comments about Groeschel. If his stuff appeals to Metro or anybody else, great and God Bless.

However, after having lived in Edmond for 17 years, I've been subject to a constant bombardment of Groeschel marketing--longer than Metro has been one of his followers and advertisers. I'm weary of it, of him, and of the LC brand.

The constant adverts on this forum, however, seem akin to the "forcing" of views you mention.

Regardless, honor vis a vis society in relation to God or this country/era/universe's level of "honor to God" vs. any others is a moot point. Aside from folks tendancy to idealize the past, I find that "honor" remains pretty well constant and "dishonor" perhaps moreso.

Back at 'ya.

Level of education most definately correlates in a "need for [a] God" with the greater amount of education = less belief in higher powers. Studies have pretty consistantly shown this.

However, what are the underlying explinations? I don't think education causes a disbeleif in god. It seems more likely that those intellectually and tempramentally equiped for college level work are more likely to ponder the big "why" of the existance. All theologies get squishy when held up to rational scrutiny. There are too many fantastic or illogical arguments in all theological texts.

However, the percentage of educated people who remain adherents of one theology or another remains pretty consistant. How come? There's probably something inate in the human brain or religious activity satisfies a social/communal need.

At the same time, I'm not interested in dissuading anybody from which ever point of view they have. It's not my business to question anybody's faith.

Which isn't ever at the root of my comments about Groeschel. If his stuff appeals to Metro or anybody else, great and God Bless.

However, after having lived in Edmond for 17 years, I've been subject to a constant bombardment of Groeschel marketing--longer than Metro has been one of his followers and advertisers. I'm weary of it, of him, and of the LC brand.

The constant adverts on this forum, however, seem akin to the "forcing" of views you mention.

Regardless, honor vis a vis society in relation to God or this country/era/universe's level of "honor to God" vs. any others is a moot point. Aside from folks tendancy to idealize the past, I find that "honor" remains pretty well constant and "dishonor" perhaps moreso.

Curious...have you read much C. S. Lewis? Not the fantasy stuff, his writings on theology.

Back at 'ya.

Level of education most definately correlates in a "need for [a] God" with the greater amount of education = less belief in higher powers. Studies have pretty consistantly shown this.

However, what are the underlying explinations? I don't think education causes a disbeleif in god. It seems more likely that those intellectually and tempramentally equiped for college level work are more likely to ponder the big "why" of the existance. All theologies get squishy when held up to rational scrutiny. There are too many fantastic or illogical arguments in all theological texts.

However, the percentage of educated people who remain adherents of one theology or another remains pretty consistant. How come? There's probably something inate in the human brain or religious activity satisfies a social/communal need.

At the same time, I'm not interested in dissuading anybody from which ever point of view they have. It's not my business to question anybody's faith.

Which isn't ever at the root of my comments about Groeschel. If his stuff appeals to Metro or anybody else, great and God Bless.

However, after having lived in Edmond for 17 years, I've been subject to a constant bombardment of Groeschel marketing--longer than Metro has been one of his followers and advertisers. I'm weary of it, of him, and of the LC brand.

The constant adverts on this forum, however, seem akin to the "forcing" of views you mention.

Regardless, honor vis a vis society in relation to God or this country/era/universe's level of "honor to God" vs. any others is a moot point. Aside from folks tendancy to idealize the past, I find that "honor" remains pretty well constant and "dishonor" perhaps moreso.

Thats odd considering he hasn't been in Edmond that long, he was at 1st UMC in OKC I believe as recent as 14 years ago. Anyhow if you have such a discourse for Groechel, why do you read the threads and belittle him, don't you have something better to do?

The way to honor God is to KNOW what the Bible says, and what you KNOW of those times.
Quite prayer and mediation.
Marking & Avoiding contentious people.
Contend without being Contentious...Contend with and for the faith but be careful.
Contentiousness seizes upon one’s desire for righteousness and pushes it too far. It fosters the “my way or the highway” attitude. It leads to prejudice, intolerance and persecution. Contentious people find reassurance among those of their own ilk. They entertain the false notion that proving how wrong an opponent is affirms how right they must be. This practice is especially evident in American politics.
How it compares to now, and treat people in a way that brings honor to God.
Not to cause people to RUN from God.
Remember my children:
In this life and on this earth.
For some it can be as close to heaven as they will be.
For other it will be as close to hell as they will be.
Why take a chance to cause someone to prefer hell, then God with your words or actions?

Thats odd considering he hasn't been in Edmond that long, he was at 1st UMC in OKC I believe as recent as 14 years ago. Anyhow if you have such a discourse for Groechel, why do you read the threads and belittle him, don't you have something better to do?
Typo. I've lived in edmond 13 years. I would never mention him if you didn't advetise for him. If you don't want things discussed, don't post them.

Some of us have been discussing your post of his blog post. You seem to be more interested in uncritical praise of his words. I don't think that's what forums are for.

If you want that, start the "I Love Craig Groeschel" Forum, be the moderator, and edit all posts which don't praise him like you think he should be praised.

If you want to actually discuss your post, what do you think about his truncating Isaiah 29:13? Isn't it significant that he cut off the part of the verse that would have undercut his argument?

In my way of thinking, context is really important if you are going to quote a verse to support a particular theological view.

i'm not a fan of groeschel's theology but how does the rest of isaiah 29:13 undercut the argument that god should be treated with honor and respect?

-M

Maybe by putting the whole verse will shine light on the interpretations.

Isaiah 29:13 (New International Version)


13 The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

Why does he choose to leave it out? It isn't and insignificant part of the verse--it is the entire point.

To leave it out distorts the meaning completely.

The verse warns against over reliance on other people--like charismatic preachers--to define one's faith.

By leaving this significant part out, he turns this verse into a meaningless clobber text.


Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men
Or

They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men

I don't advertise for Groechel, it's called citing my sources. I'm not going to take credit for his work. You'd site any of your agnostic, apolegitic, atheist philosophers that you post and not think twice about it as "advertising." I don't care if you criticize or question Groechel, you obviously don't listen to him, because he tells you to question him, read the word to verify, etc. It just seems to me you're so Anti-Grochel, you forget why others might have an opposing opinion to yours. You remind me of one of Grochel's stalkers, are you/were you one of his stalkers?

here we go the american taliban trying to tell people how to live there lives i guess if we just let go and let them decide what we watch and say and here the world would be so much better. that was sarcasm just so you know. i dont wanna here from you people you so called christains you guys have pastor who preach about the evil of being gay and drg use but then get arested in a hotel room with drugs and a gay lover

OK? Sorry but what does that have to do with Groechel? Do you have evidence of him being gay and a drug user?