Rick Warren Claims to 'Out-Sacrifice' Jesus Christ?

**This is an Updated and Expanded Version of this post**

A reader from New Zealand pointed out this Rick Warren quote from the Pastors.com website. I had to track it down and when I did my jaw hit the floor!

Rick Warren is quoted on his own website as saying “I will never let anybody out-sacrifice me for Saddleback Church."

Here is a screen clip from Warren's site.

Now, to be fair, Pastor Rick didn't say that he is out-sacrificing Jesus. Yet, since Pastor Warren said that he will never let ANYBODY out-sacrifice him, one could assume that Jesus Christ could be included in Pastor Warren's 'anybody' list. But, it is unlikely that is what Warren meant.

This however, leads us to two more important questions...

1) What did Warren mean by this statement?

2) Is it appropriate for a Christian Pastor to be talking this way?

What did Warren mean by this statement?

It is very difficult to figure out exactly what Warren meant by this statement. There is no context. It is just a free floating quote. Therefore, your interpretation of this quote is automatically going to be colored by your opinions of Warren.

In my study of Warren, his purpose-driven movement, his constant talking about himself and his achievements, the churches that have been destroyed by his programs and his unrepentant misuse and abuse of God's Word, I have come to the conclusion that Warren is a dangerous and deceptive man. I see this quote as more evidence that Warren is a self-centered and prideful person who is more interested in his agenda and programs than he is in faithfully teaching the word of God.

Someone with a favorable opinion of Warren however, will interpret this quote in a more favorable light and try to put the best construction on it.

Whether you put a good spin on it or not, one thing is undeniably clear about this statement, It is a boast. This is Rick Warren boasting about himself and claiming that he will not let anyone out do him when it comes to sacrificing for Saddleback.

This leads to our second question.

Is it appropriate for a Christian Pastor to be talking this way?

When I first read the quote my initial reaction to it was utter disbelief. Why? Because as one who teaches in the church I understand that my job is to point people to Jesus Christ not to myself. When I read this quote I immediately asked, "Does Pastor Warren now think of himself as a Christ-figure or Messiah"? "Does Pastor Warren believe that he has sacrificed more for Saddleback Church than Jesus?"

I could not understand how on earth a Christian Pastor could boast about himself like this!

I believe that scripture teaches that we are not supposed to boast about our sacrifices. Instead we are to boast about Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins!

This arrogant boast by Warren deeply offends me. I find it disgusting and inappropriate for a Christian Pastor to talk this way.

This quote is even more offensive in light of the fact that Warren is always the one reminding people that the first sentence in the Purspose-Driven Life is "It's NOT about YOU."

If he really believed that, then why on earth would he ever talk about himself is this way?

If it is NOT about Rick Warren, then Rick Warren needs to talk about Jesus' sacrifice not his own.

Galatians 6:14 - But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

2 Corinthians 10:17 - Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 11:30 - If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

James 4:16 - As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

-----

Here is the link to the page on Rick Warren’s site.

Since Saddleback has a habit of removing damaging content and videos from the web as soon as they surface. I’ve posted a screen shot from the Pastors.com page below. Click here to view it.

Comments

[Val]

I am rendered speechless! (Which is a difficult thing to do).

[Jon]

What a ridiculous argument and twisting of words you are making on this blog. Unbelievable. We need to stop canibalizing other Christians, as was happening back in Galatia.

[Joe]

I once said, "No one is going to outpitch me today!" I hadn't really thought about Jesus pitching in a baseball game.

[Pastor Ken Silva]

Hey Chris,

Nice job my brother! I picked this post of yours up at AM here as "You Hear Me: 'Nobody Out Gives Rick Warren...Nobody!' ":
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/12/you_hear_me_ano.html

*sheepishly* I didn't know how to do a trackback. :-o Maybe now AM can get a link, eh? ;-) Keep up the great work my brother!

[Val]

Mr. Joe and Mr. Jon,

You're right. I'm sure Pastor Rick didn't have Jesus in mind when he made that audacious boast. Because, if he did have Jesus in mind he would have never had dared to utter such words.

Out of curiousity, who do you think Pastor Warren is most like in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector?

In case you're not familiar with it here is the parable.

Luke 18:9   To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

Luke 18:13   “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

Luke 18:14   “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

When Pastor Rick said that we won't let anybody out sacrifice him, was that a humble statement or was he exhalting himself?

[Chris Rosebrough]

To those who would defend this statement made by Pastor Warren.

Please show us from scripture where it is okay for a Christian pastor to boast in his own good works, or exalt himself in this way.

Notice that Warren's statement was made without ANY qualification. Therefore, it doesn't say if he had Jesus in mind or not when he made this boastful, self-exalting statement.

Even if he didn't have Jesus in mind this type of boasting is contrary to the clear commands and warnings of scripture.

Warren was right when he said, "It's not about you". It is high-time for him to practice what he preaches.

[Faithful]

Hello, Mr. Rosebrough. I posted this over at Slice (in slightly different form), but I thought you might could use it here, as well--or if not this, something akin thereto.

I concur that we must qualify the above criticism. We must account for the possibility that Mr. Warren's eyes were not focused on Christ when he spoke.

Even if Mr. Warren made this comment out of an unguardedness of mouth, an episode of non-thinking, a blithering variety of stupidity, he is not fit to represent Christ to the world. Even absent the blasphemy inherent in his statement, here are some problems:

For one thing, he announces this as though it were a competition! Why is he concerning himself with the sacrifice of other believers at all, rather than to do what is right in the sight of the Lord? His eyes are wrong. His heart is wrong.

And for another, it is yet another incident of self-promotion. "No matter how much YOU do for the Church, I can and will do more!" Well, good luck with that, Beanie-boy, but I think you'll find your untold riches don't measure up to two mites from old Mrs. Perkins.

If this man is not a heretic, he makes so many gaffes in his speaking and presentation to the world that he is a poor, poor witness for Christ--certainly not fit to be in leadership. He needs to take a hiatus and spend some time working on curbing his mouth, reining in his attitude, and studying ONE Bible from cover to cover. And praying. A lot.

...There. That's better. It's good to be the "moderate" voice once in a while.

[Val]

Mark 12:41   And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. 43 And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”

I wonder if Pastor Rick took into consideration any of the poor widows of Saddleback Church. Two pennies from one these gals could qualify as a greater sacrifice than all the money in his 'reverse-tithe'.

[john]

Why doesn't someone send an email to have Mr Warren clarify his statement. Or what if you just put it in the context of how it was used on the site.

Everyone here knows he wasn't saying he out-gives Christ. It's a ministry site for other pastors. He's encouraging pastors to be first in line when it comes time to sacrifice for their congregation.

I agree TOTALLY with Jon and Joe. This website is poison!

Read James 3 and repent!

[V]

John,

There is a link directly to the site. Click it.

You can see for yourself, this quote was not taken out of context. That dog won't hunt.

The person who should be repenting is Rick Warren.

This is just one in a long series of red-flags that sites like this one have been pointing out.

Wake up and smell the real gospel my friend.

Rick Warren's purpose-driven gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as laid out in sacred writ.

[Sparks]

Shouldn't RW's boastful sacrifices be to Jesus Christ and not to Saddleback Church?

[Erica]

Jon and John,
Well done! I could not have said that any better myself! I completly agree with you.

[john]

OK. So here at "extreme theology", we have obviously learned not to create theologies from one verse. Very bad form.

So please give me a specific place where Warren says his sacrifice for Saddleback is greater than Christ's. Dude has enough writings and articles. Come up with a secondary source. And a third.

Get real! You know that's not what he meant. You're twisting words to attack a man you don't even know! This is called a straw man.

Easy. Set it up and knock it down. Score one point for our team.

You should be ashamed of the spiteful, vitriolic posts like this one.

Warren's PDL has plenty of things to critique. You don't need to play games like this.

[Ken Schmidt]

Self-worship is the final spiritual stage of people who have given themselves over to works righteousness.

[PostBono]

While I agree with John that this post is most likely a straw-man, Warren never said that he has done more for his church than Jesus, Faithful and Val have it right. Sacrifice is not a competition. The very fact that Pastors.com has this quote up displays the pride of Saddleback showing through the fog, that they see Church growth, sacrifice, and ministry as a competition. It's not a good witness to tell everyone how much you sacrifice by telling everyone about your reverse tithe.

[wayne]

While I agree that the "Purpose Driven" movement has much to be criticized for, I find this blog entry rather poor as "proof" of doctrinal unsoundness. I went to the webpage in question, and the comment is a stand alone statement without any context as to why Rick was making this statement. Even though he is nearing heretic status on this blog, I think I can guess why he made this statement since he is the senior pastor, and the comment was on the Pastor.com website.

I came to this blog after listening to Chris on Issues Etc a couple of times, but I'm finding some of the blog entries to be unreasonable in trying to prove that Purpose Driven is "All About Me" instead of "All About God". I would stick to pointing out what Rick's books say versus what the Bible says.

[kim]

I remember at the church we left about a year ago, we always felt sheepish about how much we were able to give. The reason for that was, we were always having a new building program every couple of years, and the pastor, to try to motivate others into giving more, would bring a few families up every now and then and let them tell you how much they were giving. I was happy that they were able to do that, but these were very wealthy families and not the norm of the congregation. These people would tell you about land that they sold and gave the money to the church, or money they took out of a retirement fund, etc. We don't have a retirement fund, much less extra land to sell and give proceeds to the church. When we gave, it was out of living expenses that we juggled around. We were happy we could give some, but we really resented the fact of parading people up front, giving an account of all they gave, and then being asked if we were sacrificing as much as them. They weren't giving out of their bill money, they were giving out of their extras. I'm not digging on them for being able to give a lot, that's great, and if they have a lot and can give a lot, that's wonderful, but the comparing, which I think is what is bothering most of us about this rick warren thing, is wrong and unscriptural.

[Maria]

i would like to know if any of you that are so upset about rick warren's comments have ever said anything that someone misread or misinterpreted. if you have NEVER had something you said taken out of context, please, let me know, because i know that i certainly have. all it does is cause pain and arguing and discord for no reason. i suggest the next time you quote something you have solid proof, or go directly to the source and be POSITIVE that you have the right meaning/context. i agree with joe, john, and erica.

[john]

PostBono has a great point. THESE are the type of things we could debate. Can sacrifice become a competition? Can purpose be discovered through formulas? Does the message of Christ work when drained of all the mystery and presented like toaster instructions?

These are valid things to debate about PDL.

[Val]

Mr. John,

Those are excellent discussion topics.

I was beginning to think that there was no hope for you.

[Chris Rosebrough]

To All,

It is apparent to me that in the first version of this post I failed miserably at communicating what I believed we're the important points about this quote of Warren's.

Therefore, I've updated the post in order to provide more clarification of my primary points of contention.

[Val]

Mr. John,

Regarding secondary and tertiary sources.

In light of Mr. Rosebrough's clarification, the issue on the table is not whether Mr. Warren believes that he is 'out-sacrificing' Jesus Christ.

The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for Rick Warren to boast about his sacrifices. (Which by the way, has been my point all along)

This latest quote of Warren's then is one of a string of quotes by Warren where he talks and boasts about himself and what he has done.

His 'reverse tithe'
His 'Global Peace Plan'
His 'AIDS Summit'
His 'Purpose-Driven Church Movement'
His 'Assistance to Rwanda'
His 'Sacrifice for Saddleback Church'

Quite frankly if I hear about Warren's reverse tithe one more time, I'm liable to puke.

Seems like everytime this man opens his mouth I learn more about Rick Warren but I hear precious little about Jesus Christ.

Does this bother you at all?

[esharky]

Has anyone asked Mr. Warren for clarification? It seems like there really is no difference between christians and other bloggers. I had hoped for a little better.

Didn't Paul "boast" in this same way? Why would it be okay for Paul to say it and not a contemporary pastor? In fact, Paul talked about himself and his suffering...

what do you all think of that? Do you think God would have stopped Paul from saying that especially as he wrote your bible?

[Steve R]

Hi All,
Warrens quote seems to be paraphrased (how appropriate!) from this rather lengthy post on Generous Giving.org:

http://www.generousgiving.org/articles/display.asp?id=181

It is under the heading 'Model 2: The Pastor' and is from an edited version of a speech delivered at the Exponential ’04 Conference for Pastors, Generous Giving’s joint conference with Crown Financial Ministries, Alpharetta, Ga., September 21, 2004.
Make of it what you will.
Steve.

[Chris Rosebrough]

Steve,

Great catch!

Interesting article. I don't agree with him. But, it does explain where he is coming from.

Warren goes wrong early in the article. He is working from the wrong premise.

Here is the quote that takes him in the wrong direction.

>>>If we are going to form the village of the vision, we are of course going to have to fund the vision. Unfortunately, one skill that we pastors are never taught in Bible school or seminary is how to teach people to give generously and abundantly, in an over-the-top fashion.<<<

Warren's 'village of vision' is an alternate competing vision to Christ's. vision for the church.

There is plenty of 'vision' talk in the Purpose Driven Churcn and the pastors.com website for anyone who'd like to take the time to research it.

One thing is certain, building a mega-church like Saddleback and funding an entire network of 'purpose-driven' churches takes tons of cash.

Warren's tactic for motivating others to pony up the cash necessary to build "his" vision for Saddleback was to 'out sacrifice' everyone.

Ultimatlely, his motivation for 'sacrificing' was raising funds to promote his vision.

I need time to digest this. This leaves a really bad taste in my mouth and I can't quite identify the source.

I'm really put off by the idea that Warren motivated the people at his church to give money by 'out-sacrificing' them. The end result of this was that he got to see his vision implemented.

Was that really a sacrifice?

In the business world that is called an investment. That is where you risk it all to get more.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Warren wouldn't let anyone out-invest him.

[Val]

I have to wash and disinfect after reading that article!!

HOLY COW!!!!

It is literally workshop lecture for manipulating... prodding...and coaxing church people into giving money in order to pay for bigger churches and the purpose-driven vision.

Here is a real pertinent quote...

Not everybody can give the same amount, but everybody can make a sacrifice. Show people how they can give more. People give when you make it possible for them to give.

How do you do that? Well, two ways. Show them how to decrease their expenses and show them how to increase their income. You might do a budget workshop. Show them practical steps to get their finances in order. Crown Financial Ministries has terrific materials in this area. When you show people how to decrease their expenses, you have effectively shown them how to increase their income in certain ways so that they can give more.

I've always wondered why so many of these mega-churches are preoccupied with financial management and are always using guilt to motivate people to get out of debt. The reason why is so that you will give THEM more of your money!!

I liked this post better when we didn't know what Warren was talking about.

The way he talks about church people is the way a dairy farmer talks about cows. "Here are some practical ways to increase milk production so that you can have a bigger dairy farm."

I'm so upset by this article that I've to to go hit my punching bag!

[Joe]

Most people give less than 3% to their church. Jesus talked more about money than any other topic (don't come back at me on that one until you've taken the time to research yourself). As a pastor, it is my responsibility to teach the flock how to give. Speaking from experience, many many Christians have no idea how to manage their money.
Mr. Val,
Do you not believe that everyone can sacrifice? Or do you not believe that everyone should give to their local church? I've read the article twice, where did he motivate from guilt?

[Joe]

Here's my question: "Why isn't there a SINGLE quote on any of Chris' latest posts that don't deal with RW. Have a Cross Centered Christmas--not one! How about "How's Your Advent Season Going?"---not one! If this is truly all about Theology, and not RW, where's the comments on the post that don't have anything to do with him?

[Erica]

I am not sure what the problems is? In fact, the article was very encouraging to me. We are having these struggles in our church right now.
Steve R. even thought your motives for putting this article out there is unclear. The Lord used it to speak to me tonight and encourage me. Rick Warren has a lot of insight on the topic of giving and he backs it up with a lot of scripture that you can not argue with if you know your bible at all.

[paul]

This is hilarious to me. I call this Rick Warren envy. You should all repent for being critical and judgemental. Used to the knock on mega churches was that they didn't ask people to do anything hard....like GIVE. They didnt talk about money, therefore they were doing a disservice to the gospel. Now the criticism is that they are teaching people to manage their money so that they can give to the kingdom (what is so wrong with that???). I do believe that God "entrusts" visions to people. Rick Warren has been entrusted with a vision. The best vision that many of you can come up with is to bash Rick Warren for having one. How about this....ask God to give you a vision and quit bashing Christians for carrying out the vision that they feel God has given them.

[Erica]

Amen brother!!

[esharky]

Paul, that makes a lot of sense. Seems like you are the only one so far who wants to not simply bash a well known leader (ok, Erica you too).

POINT
I think our society needs to be able to discuss REAL issues without bashing people. This is the problem I see here on this blog: so much focus on what is wrong with one person instead of what is right about YOUR OWN position. Come on, persuade us... not through bashing others but by espousing your own views. So far, Paul wins the argument in my book.

If I argued like the rest of you back in grad school, I'd get laughed about.

[esharky]

Sorry, joe, you too are being reasonable.

[john]

The money issue rubs me the wrong way. I don't think building our church organizations (what many people refer to as church - First Baptist Church or Main Street Methodist) necessarily builds the Kingdom of God.

I also don't think we as believers are called to "build" or "expand" Christ's kingdom. He does that. Our job is to simply "be" in His kingdom.

That's one of my major differences with Warren. I think being a good pastor has nothing to do with numbers or money and everything to do with how to help others learn to "be" in the kingdom - to adopt the values that Christ taught and to love others more than ourselves.

[paul]

Whether you call it being the kingdom or building the kingdom...it doesnt matter. What you can not argue against is that we are called to Expand the kingdom (the great commission) and help the poor. Both of those things require tremendous resources by the Rick Warren is leading the charge to do both of those things with great fervor and all people on here want to do is attack the way he is doing it. Here's a thought....if you dont like the way he is doing it, get so busy doing it yourself that you dont have time to criticize him. I love the stated purpose of this sight by the way "the proclamation and defense" of the gospel. I've got news for you....God doesn't need your help in defending His Gospel. We are not called to defend the gospel (I'm sure thats how you would justify this whole site..."I'm just defending the gospel so it wont be hijacked by Rick Warren" or something ridiculous like that. Why dont you get as busy proclaiming it as Rick Warren. God is fully capable of defending his own gospel....In fact his gospel needs no defense. Whether you call that "building the kingdom" or "expanding the kingdom", I dont care. Lastly, Jesus said that you know a tree by it's fruit. Rick Warrens fruit is plain to see (whether you like his methods or not). Where is your fruit?

[Joe]

John and Paul,
As a pastor of a small church--very small, I couldn't agree with both you of more. We are called to impact the world for the Kingdom, and being a good pastor has little to do with numbers or money
Joe

[Erica]

Wow Paul you are right on!! I agree with you on your comment about this site. God calls us to love one another. I need to say nothing more but to cheer you on. You have a lot of great points.

[john]

Paul and Erica,
First of all, read some of my posts above. I'm not knocking Rick Warren for trying. Though I don't agree with his methods, I give him credit for doing what he thinks is right.

As to your statement:

"What you can not argue against is that we are called to Expand the kingdom (the great commission) and help the poor. Both of those things require tremendous resources..."

I don't think it's our jobs to "expand" the kingdom - just let others know about it. When people hear about the kingdom, many will want to become part - but that's not to our credit. God prepares them, invites them and seals them with His spirit.

As for it requiring lots of "resources" (read MONEY), I very much disagree. How did Jesus and His disciples do it? They were basically homeless fishermen and carpenters and tax collectors. It was in their revolutionary way of living everyday life that they showed people the Kingdom - not in slick printed materials or TV shows or whatever.

Now, I'm well aware that there's a certain tension with communicating in our modern world. I'm not saying those things are bad. I would contend, though, that WAY too much effort goes into all that stuff.

I believe that if every believer lived selfless lives - esteeming others as better than themselves - then a lot more people would want into the kingdom. The issue the American Church often has is that people look at the way we live our lives and simply say "No thanks - you're no different from me. Why do I want that?"

[john]

Paul,
Your idea of "look at the fruit" is much more complicated than you give it credit for.

Jesus tells a story about wheat and weeds. The sowers sows seed. But at night, the enemy creeps in and sows weeds.

The next day, the workers go to the sower and say "somebody has planted weeds in and among our wheat! Do you want us to go pull it out?"

But the sower says no. He tells them to let them grow up together and then he'll sort it all out at harvest time.

My point is that wheat and weeds look very much the same as they're growing. It's hard to tell them apart. Only Christ can do that.

Now, I'm NOT saying Warren is a weed. If you'll read above, I have defended him being orthodox and sincere.

But to say that a church or person is successful because of the money in their account or their ranking on the book charts or whatever else is dangerous. We simply don't know sometimes.

I've never liked the idea that we're called to be "fruit inspectors". The Bible says our hearts are deceitfully wicked - why do I want to sit in judgment over someone's life?

Perhaps some among us are called to that, but I'll leave that to wise, elderly statesmen of the faith that have much more wisdom and perspective than I.

[Kelly]

Some of the same old same old. Faulty, and sometimes very naive, premises that have reared their heads once again:

1) "People who criticize Rick Warren and his message and methods do so out of envy of his success." If this were the case, people like me and the other PDL-burn-outs would never have left the safe, happy, successful land of PD-ism. I'm not a pastor and I don't have a single reason to envy his popularity. Though I'm not attempting to judge his sincerity, I do question his eccentric use of Scripture, as do many Christians. There is nothing wrong with doing this and taking it very seriously.

2) "People who attack other Christians are using up all their energy this way instead of doing good works. Where's *your* fruit?" Way to make assumptions. I suppose many people here *could* tell you about their good deeds, but then they'd be guilty of the same thing Rick Warren has done. No matter what, no one will like a critic. If they try to defend themselves on these grounds, they will just end up sounding boastful.

3) "If it works, it must be good [pragmatism]. If it's being done in the name of Christianity, it must be good. If it's generating money and helping the poor, it's fulfilling the great commission and the church's duty." Not so. John makes some good points. We are not called to "expand" the kingdom, though Warren has used bizarre out-of-context Scriptures to try to push this idea. The Church, as per Matthew 28, is to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. And not teaching self-help principles and business techniques, but by teaching *everything* handed down by Christ. The biggest criticism Christians across the board have of PDL, etc. is that the message of the seriousness of sin and the truth of the Gospel is minimized or ignored altogether.

4) "We're not supposed to be defending the Gospel." Where does this nutty idea come from? What do you think Paul was talking about in his letter to the Galatians, for example? Just a peek at passages like Galatians 1:6-12, 2:11-21, and all of chapter 3, 4:1-10, etc. etc. suggest that Paul was very concerned about the pervasive influence that just a little bit of false teaching could have upon the message of the Gospel, and that false gospels often take the place of Christ crucified.

[Diana]

While I agree that what Rick Warren said is very cocky and boastful sounding I dont believe for a minute that he was comparing himself to Jesus..other men perhaps but not Jesus. I think it is good to point out the folly of his words and I agree he may need some work on his pride, I still think the quote is being twisted too far in saying that he intended to compare himself to Jesus. That is acting like the news media that take things out of context to make the person look bad. If you want to analyze his words that is fine but dont say he said something that he didnt actually say (the Jesus part). It is clear after reading PDL that Jesus was not what he was comparing himself to.

[paul]

Kelly,
I just re-read all the Galatian passages that you referenced there. I am still trying to find and scripture that commands us to DEFEND the gospel.

[Kelly]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. We don't need to *apologize* for the Gospel as though we're sorry for it, insofar as it is God's revelation, not a mere intellectual exercise. But we are certainly to uphold it in the face that which would seek to replace Christ crucified with other things. The Galatians were dealing with what might have seemed like "secondary issues" to a lot of them-- i.e. do Christians need to be circumcized, may Jews continue to isolate themselves from Gentiles, etc. Paul tells them that they are in danger of actually rejecting the Gospel. So I can only repeat: "Paul was very concerned about the pervasive influence that just a little bit of false teaching could have upon the message of the Gospel, and that false gospels often take the place of Christ crucified."

We certainly need to be ready to give a defense for everything we believe (..."but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;" 1 Peter 3:15), and the Gospel is at the very top of that list. Of course, if false or misleading teaching isn't dangerous at all, if anything a benevolent and successful person says or teaches is okay as long as they're a Christian, then this is a moot point. I guess that's what many people would argue.

Diana: I agree that Warren is certainly not setting out to compare himself to Jesus. Probably just about all of the posters here would agree, I think. If my own pastor said something like that, though, I'd have to take him to task... it was a silly thing to say.

[Joe]

Show me from Scripture where it is your job to "take a pastor to task." I"d appreciate it if you, Kelly--or anyone for that matter--could show me where you are called to do that. Secondly, I'd like you to show me where you're called to do it in such an open forum as an online journal.
Thanks

[paul]

That is exactly right Joe. And Kelly, my point is still the same....we are not commanded to defend the gospel. We are to "test" teaching for ourself. The scripture never commands us to "defend" the gospel. The same people who get all bent out of shape about the term "build the kingdom" because God is going to build his kingdom use the phrase "defend the gospel" as if God needs our help on this one. I think the whole of scripture would clearly indicate that God has called us to be partners with him in building the kingdom. However, I do not believe that the scripture calls us to "defend the gospel". God seems to want to handle that one completely on his on. I am in favor of letting him. Instead of spending so much time and effort criticizing PDL because of it's "lack of the seriousness of sin", why dont you write a book that handles the subject more completely...and that people will read. I will tell you why people dont do that, because it is so much easier to be a critic. It is so much easier to "defend" than it is to advance.
As far as your fruit argument, and how it is so very complicated (sarcasm intended). I really dont understand why Jesus would give us that measuring stick, we are clearly not smart enough to use it (again sarcasm intended). It seems so simple when I read it in the red letters.

[Erica]

Paul and Joe,
I could not agree with you more. Paul you bring an excellent point to the discussion.
Joe you can not prove their point that you have to take a pastor to task. You will be waiting a long time for that response I have a feeling.

[wayne]

Hi Paul,

I believe Kelly quoted 1 Peter 3:15b as a proof text that we are to defend the gospel. This is how it is worded in the NASB... always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence... In your response you stated that you did not believe that scripture calls us to defend the gospel. However you did not respond as to how you interpret 1 Peter 3:15b. Perhaps the issue is the word "defend", and what it means to each person? Looking in commentaries the word in question is "apologia". It can mean 1. verbal defence, speech in defence, or 2.
a reasoned statement or argument. I think Peter was assuming that believers would be knowledgeable enough about the Gospel so they would be able to "defend" it in whatever circumstance they might find themselves. Of course in a very real sense God is handling it by the working of the Holy Spirit in a proper presentation of the Gospel.

As some of the replies on this blog are getting rather ascerbic, I would point out what Peter said in the last part of the verse...yet with gentleness and revererence. This is how believers are to interact with unbelievers. Should believer to believer expect less?

[Joe]

Wayne,
If you read the verse, it says, "defense for the HOPE that is in you." Kelly is not giving a defense for the hope that she has in her, if indeed she has hope in her, by attacking RW. To use this verse as a defense borders on the absurd. Even the most casual reading of it, cannot lead one to think it should mean that somehow we are to attack other people, and I'm not sure how it could lead us to think we must defend the Scripture. It's about explaining to people why we have hope.

[wayne]

Hi Joe,

I don't believe I said 1 Peter 3:15b is a biblical pass to attack anyone. Kelly (as I understood her) was pointing out that Peter does in fact require us to be able to defend our Hope, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I really hope I'm wrong here, but you seem to be saying that Kelly is unsaved because of perceived attacks on Rick Warren. Of course I'm rather new to this blog and I have not had a chance to see how the different personalities have interacted with one another over a period time (posts).

[Joe]

Goodness no! But in looking back I can see how what I wrote could be taken that way. I don't know Kelly. I don't know her at all. So I certainly wasn't trying to say that, at all.

[Kelly]

Like I said, and showed from Scripture-- we are to defend the Gospel. We are not to let it be walked over or ignored in our churches. Thank you to those of you who actually bothered to read my post. It is also overwhelmingly Scriptural to test all things that pastors or anyone else would tell us, not to blindly accept them and turn our eyes away when they start saying outrageous things, for fear of rocking the boat.

I am shocked and amazed if none of you would never consider confronting a pastor for obscuring the Gospel, or for providing incorrect Scripture references to support their ideas. I've talked to pastors of my own in the past when I think they've gone off base with a reference, and they are usually gracious, understanding, often even admit they were wrong-- and VERY thankful that someone out there is listening and thinks that truth is important! I don't think that only the most elite and advanced are called to be discerning within Christendom. Each believer is responsible for how they handle the Word, and they should *absolutely* take a stand against anyone teaching incorrectly. I also can't believe that you think it's "attacking" someone just to suggest that there are actually WRONG. I have heard childish name-calling and ad hominim arguments against individuals, which are always uncalled-for. But protecting the truth of the Gospel in the face of a movement that is very far-reaching, influential, and a pitifully watered-down conception of Christianity (by a number of people's standards), is simply doing what you're supposed to do as a Christian. Rick Warren is a public figure and there is nothing wrong with discussing, analyzing, and critiquing his output publically. Mind you, anyone's supporters would rather you do it behind closed doors so that their hero's popularity isn't impeded, but that's not the way you confront persistent faulty teaching. I can just see Martin Luther now, huddled in a room, not daring to write, publish, or speak a word against the abuses of the pope and church of his time: "They'll just think I'm a big meanie. Besides, we're all Christians, right?"

"Why don't you go and write your own book?" Another one of my favorite silly lines from people who complain about critics. I'm working on it. As a matter of fact I've published a few articles and have a few more on the go. But many other people have already published books that put it more eloquently than I could.

[paul]

For people that are so concerned with how Rick Warren "misuses" scripture, it is amazing to see the liberty that you are taking with 1 Peter 3:15. The verse actually says "15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,". You are commanded to make a defense for the hope that you have. It certainly does not require you to "defend" the gospel.
Kelly, I'm sure your book will be widely read and will straighten out any misconceptions that PDL has caused.

[Kelly]

I'm sorry that, by your admission, "the hope that is within you" isn't "the Gospel." How many other sources of hope do you have? That's it-- we're just given up speaking in defense the truth as Christians? St. Paul must have really been wasting his time writing all those letters to the churches, urging them to stand firm in the truth and oppose those who oppose it.

Fortunately, many other books have been written and widely read, straightening out the crummy theology of PDL.

[Joe]

Ok, so to defend means what? How is RW attacking your hope, Kelly?

[paul]

Kelly,
Are you really trying to say that you think 1 Peter 3:15 means that we are to defend the gospel? Is that really your position?

[robert]

Thre greek word for defense is apologia, strongs 627

ἀπολογία [apologia /ap·ol·og·ee·ah/] n f. From the same as 626; GK 665; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “defence” three times, “answer” three times, “answer for (one’s) self” once, and “clearing of (one’s) self” once. 1 verbal defence, speech in defence. 2 a reasoned statement or argument.

the context of the scripture holds that we should make a defense of the gospel.

15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Php 1:15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Pe 3:15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Yes you are to be apologists, defenders, proclaimers of the gospel! Why? Because it is the reason for the hope that is within you!
That being said it is pretty shocking that any mature Christian would not know this fact. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation, for those who believe. Anyone who would openly deny this is either ignorant to the word of God or perhaps they are those that are spoken of in Rom. 1 who openly suppress the truth. Aren't those who are unwilling to defend the Gospel the same ones that are spoken of in 2 Tim 3:5 having the appearance of Godliness but denying it's power. Yes, just as Paul defended the Gospel we are to defend the gospel too.

[paul]

I find it shocking that someone who is trying to criticize someone else's use of scripture would so twist the scripture. That scripture is clearly saying that we are to always be prepared to tell people why we have hope. It is clearly not saying that we are to "defend" the gospel against such "heretics" (sarcasm intended) as Rick Warren.

[Kelly]

What I said is that we are to defend the Gospel, which indeed is the hope within us. I can't believe that this would be such a radical point of controversy!

"It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me." --Philippians 1:7

"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel." --Philippians 1:15-16

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. *When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel*, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?..." --Galatians 2:11-14

What does it mean to defend the Gospel? It doesn't mean to keep your mouth shut because you assume that it's not your job to speak the truth, that somehow God's voice will come booming out of the clouds to enlighten people. It means that when you see teaching that is not in accordance with the Gospel and with sound doctrine, that you speak the truth of God's Word. It means when the Gospel is being distorted, added or subtracted to, ignored entirely, or hidden, that you don't accept it as an "alternate method" of Christianity, but firmly address it out of love and concern for your brothers and sisters in Christ who are being exposed to it.

Again, I ask-- is there *no* pastor or Christian leader whose teachings you would publically denounce as false? Was the Reformation, and all other church councils throughout the ages that addressed people obscuring the Gospel, just a bunch of intolerant mistakes, formulated by people who should have kept their mouths shut in the name of "humility"? Will the church just tidy itself up doctrinally if Christians, both laypeople and clergy, don't speak out against mistakes? If the Gospel is not worth standing up for, what is?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: The main problem that people seem to have with the PDL is that it obscures and downplays the Gospel. There are other doctrinal concerns held by many, as well. Even if not all of those concerns are held by *you*, you should at least recognize the large sectors of Christendom that *would* have a problem and so are obligated to recommend against the whole program for the sake of their consciences.

[robert]

I did not speak of my own interpratation but what the word says. Apologia is clearly defined as defense, verbal defense, reasoned argument. Your argument is not with me but with the text. I just cut it straight.
Do not get angry, but defend what you say from the word.

[Lisa]

After posting on another topic, I found my way here.

I can honestly say, if you don't think it's right to critically address someone's beliefs or what they proclaim as truth on the internet, why are you here?

Isn't that what we all are doing? We aren't even public figures like Warren! Yet when we put ourselves out there, state our beliefs and views on subjects - we have made the decision to let others judge whether what we say is the truth or not.

And if we have done it here.. then so has every one out there who broadcasts a sermon or publishes a book.

[paul]

Robert....what you are not "cutting straight" is what we are to called to give a defense for. Again, we are called to give a defense for the hope that is in us. What Paul is clearly saying is "Hey...when people wonder why you have hope...be prepared to tell them why."
Kelly, I stand by my claim....the Bible never commands us to defend the gospel. Clearly, Paul spoke of his defending the gospel. Still, we are not commanded by scripture to defend the gospel. We are clearly commmanded by scripture to advance the Kingdom (Matthew 28). We are also clearly commanded by scripture to love each other. I can not see any love in twisting Rick Warren's words to say he was claiming to out sacrifice Jesus. THAT IS NOT LOVE. As best I can tell, the people who want to criticize PDL do it on the basis of what is not said. In other words, it is not that RW has said something incorrect or untrue, it is that he didnt say everything there is to say....ie..his omission of the seriousness of sin, or repentance. In my estimation, that is unfair criticism. If Rick Warren had made the claim that it isnt necessary to repent of your sin, that would be different. I will wait patiently for your book to clear all of this up.

[robert]

"Be prepared to tell them why."
Have you ever been in a court room where one has had to give a reason for what they have done or what they believe? This is called a defense. Same thing in science where someone has developed a particular law or theory, they are called to defend the work they have done.
Do you deny that the original language is not apologia, I have provided the proof to you from strongs? To be quite frank with you if we can not depend upon the translation from the original language then you undermine the authority of scripture. If I am in error rather than use "it's that way because I say so" please go to the word and prove it, apologize for what you say! Research the greek text and see if it is true, that is why I gave the strongs reference. If you question it you question the original translators not me!
Is the Hope that is in you the Gospel? If not, what is the Hope that is within you? If it is not the hope of the gospel;

23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Col 1:23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Please use the scripture to defend, apologia, what you say as I have here. Paul calls it the hope of the Gospel. There are so many scripture references to this fact that it seems silly that we are having this debate.

[robert]

Also, if the advancement of the kingdom of God is not done by the proclamation of the Gospel, which Christ commanded that we proclaim in Mk 16:55

15 And he said to them,  “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mk 16:15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

then you do not advance the kingdom of God at all, in other words this is one of those fundamental teachings of the bible, if you want to advance the Kingdom of God, you have to do it by the proclamation of the Gospel. If you try to establish the Kingdom of God by anything else other than the Gospel you advance a false kingdom, a kingdom of heresy!
The Gospel of the Kingdom is what is to be proclaimed.
Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mk 13:10; Mk 16:15; Lk 4:18; 16:16
I could go on into the epistles, but the references are many. If you can not see it from scripture you have a major problem.

[Joe]

Lisa,
I have my own reasons for being herebut I'm not sure I follow your logic. Comparing what I post here being open to what RW does is illogical. You have a fair and reasonable assumption that I'll be back to read what you have to say about my post. In a very limited sense you and I have a relationship through this thread, I'm not flinging your name out there to other people.

[paul]

You see Robert....that is where you and I differ. You claim that anybody that doesnt see it the way you see it "has a big problem". Your stubborness to prove Rick Warren (and now me) wrong has clearly caused you to not see what Peter was very obviously speaking to in that verse of scripture. He was clearly saying...."be prepared to give an explamation (argument, defense, etc...) of why there is something different about you, of why you have hope." That is a very simple, clear interpretation of that scripture. I realize that doesnt help your case, but it is clearly what Peter was saying in the scripture. I'm done with this post. I am going to go on with trying to join God in advancing the kingdom. I will leave you guys to continue your judgemental rock throwing at other Christians.

[robert]

Sorry my friend, you quoted Mt 28 as a supporting scripture for advancing and it says
"make disciples of all men"
This requires a defense of the Gospel. No Gospel No Kingdom because you have no disciples. If we have a semantics problem here then take it up with strongs but don't run. The fact is a gospel free kingdom is not the kingdom of God. As usual though you use no supporting scriptures, and you speak rhetoric. I hope that you are not one of those that just clothe and feed with out the gospel because if that is what you do then you only send people warm and fed to hell. Hard words yes, perhaps it is time to get a leathery exterior and defend your faith in scripture, if that is what you have! I do not claim they have a problem if they do not see it my way, I do say they have a problem if they do not see it the way the bible clearly explains it. I guess these days though the only virtue is found in saying that you could be wrong. I would rather say the bible is right and then someone show me otherwise. I am ready for the heat of the truth, I want it, I need it.

[paul]

I wanted out of this waste of time, but I cant resist. I would call disciples being made the kingdom advancing. We disagree on the rest of the interpretation of that verse, not on the one word meaning defense. Are you arguing that 1 Peter 3:15 is commanding us to "defend" the gospel against the likes of Rick Warren? Does your theology allow for people to go to hell because of what I do or do not say?

[robert]

I do not hang my hat on one scripture alone but on ther preponderance of teaching through out the whole scripture. We are called to defend the Gospel.
We are called to give a answer to all men for the Hope that is within us, the hope of the Gospel. When that hope is challenged by false teaching we are to confront that false teaching head on whith the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel is all encompassing with the scope of the word of God with it's central truth being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of mankinds sin, to those who believe. If Rick Warren claiming to be a Christian attacks this truth, we who know the truth, are to confront his improper teaching head on! Just as Christ, Paul, Peter, John the Baptist and many others confronted the religous teachers in their day and age we are to do the same thing. We are to proclaim the truth, we are to call the one who is teaching false doctrine to repentance, whether or not that teaching is by blatant commision or subtle ommision we are to confront, in gentleness and love! We are to warn those who are less knowledgeable and or are new Christians of wrong teaching. This may not be a pleasant or popular thing to do but it is what God has called us to do. Do you believe that Christ and the men from the bible that I mentioned before did this? You are certainly confronting me since you think that what I am saying is false teaching! Why do you apply this practice here and not with others? No offense, but this seems inconsistent. I do not care if you say I am wrong, I would just ask that you show me from the word where I am wrong, for me it is not about me being right but it is about what the word of God says is truth.
As far as the salvation of others being dependent upon what you say, no their salvation is not dependent upon you at all. Their salvation is dependent upon Jesus Christ and the acceptance of the Gospel through faith, it is up to the Holy Spirit to draw men to him and change their hearts. The proclamation of the Gospel is the mode by which God has chosen to draw men to him, Romans 10:14-17 spells out the method by wich men are drawn to the truth. I will not quote it since you think I twist the scripture. So, you read it for yourself and determine if it is applicable here, I assure you that the context is in order and there are other scriptures that point to this truth. Now, as for our accountability, if we do not obey God in this, then perhaps God will raise up another to do it and we will miss our opportunity to be obedient to Him. Queen Esther faced a similar dillema in her time.
God's plans are never disappointed because of us, God will always draw those that he has chosen to him and our salvation is only dependent upon Jesus Christ.

[Raymond Gunawan]

Hello Paul,

Just out of curiosity, when you read the phrase "defend the gospel," what do you take it to mean?

It seems to me that you guys are not talking about the same thing.

Robert seems to take the phrase "defending the gospel" to mean "uncovering things that claim to be biblical while not being consistent to the Bible (and oftentimes calling them heretical)." This, I think, is the standard way the phrase is being understood.

But when you said "God doesn't need your help in defending His Gospel," it struck me that you might understood the phrase in a different way.

Would you mind elaborating on what you understand the phrase to mean?

[Kelly]

And I am still trying to work out what this mysterious "hope" is we're supposed to be defending, if not the hope of the Gospel. I hope, Paul, that you're not advocating the notion that Peter is telling us that when people ask, we should simply tell them about what great "hope" we have in our life purposes, or some other drivel.

And if God didn't expect anyone to ever defend the Gospel, what Paul was doing and saying was simply wrong and he should never have written about "defending the Gospel." Paul wasn't speaking out against people within the church who were so crazy as to say that Jesus was a space alien or something. Sometimes I get the impression that there are Christians out there who believe that only the most outrageous statements count as "heresy." He wasn't confronting Peter because Peter had said, "I don't believe that Jesus saves." He was confronting something more insidious that was eating away at the pure proclamation of the Gospel, and he was doing it boldly, for the sake of the Gospel, the kingdom, and out of LOVE for those being misled by it.

[paul]

Robert....If you really believe what you said in this... "Now, as for our accountability, if we do not obey God in this, then perhaps God will raise up another to do it and we will miss our opportunity to be obedient to Him. Queen Esther faced a similar dillema in her time.
God's plans are never disappointed because of us, God will always draw those that he has chosen to him and our salvation is only dependent upon Jesus Christ." Then how does this other quote you said even make since. I will quote you.... "I hope that you are not one of those that just clothe and feed with out the gospel because if that is what you do then you only send people warm and fed to hell." How does that line up with your supposed theology. Can I, Rick Warren, or any other person for that matter "send someone to hell"?

[Joe]

Robert, Kelly, and everyone else all fired up saying RW is selfish and all that. Go back and read Phillipians 1:18.
Paul is saying all these people are preaching for wrong reasons and yet Paul rejoices! he doesn't call them out by name, he doesn't call them heretics, he simply rejoices.
How about a little rejoicing over RW?!

[Kelly]

Paul: I realize that many Christians belive that whatever a pastor teaches is harmless and can't do any real damage as long as they still mention Jesus and do lots of societal good. The Bible has other things to say.

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." -1 Timothy 4:16

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." -Matthew 23:15

I'm not presuming who is or isn't being sent to hell. I believe that, thank God, his Word can make it through even the worst and most convoluted mess and save a person. That doesn't make the convoluted mess a praiseworthy thing.

Joe: How conveniently are you forgetting all the people that Paul *does* call out by name, denouncing them as dangerous, and teachers of another Gospel? I can rejoice that people are saved in spite of Rick Warren. Unlike the people Paul mentions in Philippians, I do not assume Warren has false motives or preaches out of envy or to be a troublemaker. But what Paul is rejoicing in is that Christ is being preached. What PDL critics have issues with is the lack of Christ being preached, and the overabundance of *us* being preached.

[Erica]

Kelly,
The whole message of the gospel is what Christ did for us. You can not preach one without the other. It is ok to preach about man, and what God has done for you and what God expects of you. Look thought the Old Testament; Abraham, it is a story of him, his life, and Gods promises to him and God expectations of him. Adam and Eve God told them all the good he promised them but than there was mans responsibility, David, God had great expectations for him, but it also tells us his story, the same with Samson, Jonah. The list goes on. God does not tell you in all those stories just about salvation. He tells you man responsibility. Rick Warren has a responsibility to his church. He should preach about Gods plan for our lives. Of course God's first plan for our life is for us to come to know Him and His work on the cross. The second is he lays out for us how He expects us to live. He did it for the bible characters mentioned above. He wants it to be taught for us too.
Joe brings an excellent point. I am not sure why you say verses don't mean what they say. I am not sure what else you can get out of that passage. It says exactly what Joe said it says.

[Kelly]

Erica, did you read the Philippians verse? Do you apply that verse to Rick Warren? If so, they you're suggesting that he's preaching with wrong motives to be a troublemaker. That's not the position that either of us take. The issue is whether Christ is effectively preached or not.

I agree that Christians need to hear both Law and Gospel. The Law is what God expects of us, what we should and should not do, and shows us where we miserably fail and need a Savior. This sets us up to hear about the Gospel-- what Jesus does for us by dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

If these two things are not kept in their respective places or clearly preached, there is a problem. The good news is not that God has a bunch of tips for you to follow to make you feel fulfilled. The Law is not the dominant characteristic of our faith; the Gospel is. If the Law is taking overwhelming precedence and Christ's cross just becomes a a good example of submission and obedience rather than the power of God unto salvation, there's a problem worth addressing. Likewise, if we are presented with a Law of God that is attainable in 12 simple steps.

[Josh]

As a fellow Christian I really find it hard to swallow what is being posted here. I hope what I am about to say can be conveyed and recieved in a humble manner.

It seems to me that you have a very bitter heart toward Dr. Warren. As I look at the past posts located on the side of your page more than half of them are about this man.

As Christians we are supposed to confront issues with the brother/sister in Christ when we see a problem but I dont see any indication that you have contacted him or his ministry.

Second, you said yourself that there is no context for this quote and I hear alot about boasting and money, but I dont see either of these present in what Dr. Warren has said. These are simply your observations - another reason I would say you have a bitter heart toward him. I believe that in 1 Cor. 13 it states that "Love always hopes", and given that we are to always be acting in Love toward one another, why would you not assume this in the best light possible until proven wrong? I dont care how many times his statements have let you down - you are still called to retain this attitude of Hope, Forgivness, and Trust in your fellow servant.

Now to the whole money issue. Who said anything about money? He said that he would let no one "out-SACRIFICE" for saddleback. A true and biblical leader is meant to serve and sacrifice for their followers, just as Jesus Christ did for us.

Lastly, I find it very interesting that you dont find anyone who actually attends that church saying anything negative about this statement yet we are attacking him here. Maybe we should humble ourselves enough to let his congregation speak for themselves.

I would also like you to account for the fact that you are publishing this on the internet. This is available for any non-Christian that may have internet access within 50 miles of them! How many people may decided after looking at your blog that "If Christians are that arrogant and willing to cut down one of their own then I want no part of them!" I have heard this argument many times before from people I am sharing the Gospel with. What will you say to them?

My point is - this man has sacrificed SO much for that congregation and for the Kingdom of God and all we are doing is ripping him to shreds! I think this is un-biblical, un-supported, and far FAR from the way Jesus would have us treat a fellow creation of God, let alone another Brother in Christ! Jesus prayed that we would be one - may it be so!!!

[robert]

Paul
I can see how that statement would confuse you. all that I am saying is that when we go to clothe and feed the poor we should do it with purpose and that purpose is to glorify God and deliver the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Giving for the sake of giving is just another work and all of our works are as filthy rags before God. We can do nothing unless we abide in Christ, and if we abide in Christ our purpose is to make him known!
The intent of the statement is the same as paul's in 1 cor 9 where he is talking about becoming all things to all people;

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 9:21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Paul did what he did for the sake of the Gospel that by all means he might save some and in saving some he might share with them in the blessings of the Gospel. How did he save some, not just by becoming like them or clothing them but he did it by the proclamation of the Gospel, that is the means to salvation! There is no other way by which a man might be saved. We are called to do the same thing that some might be saved.

[robert]

Josh
You are wrong with regards to no one contacting Rick Warren with regards to his teaching. Many have both in print and personally contacted him. I myself have been contacted by one of the pastors in the church with regards to some of the things that I have said, and I have re-iterated those concerns with him. He has yet to re- contact me.
I have not taken this lightly and gone and just issued my diagreements based on a few things that I have heard or seen. I have carefully researched all of the information that Mr Warren has produced on the particular topic that I have addressed the research. I have held it up to the word and have found it lacking.
I have yet to hear him or see him address any of the issues addressed by me or the thousands that have raised the same concerns. Why is this, he is not just a pastor anymore but a world figure, he has been called america's pastor and he does not reject that title. It is not that I want to see him ripped up by any one but, none of what has been addressed to him is of enough importance to him to dialogue with the Christian community. If he was truly as humble as you make him sound I believe he would, some how, try to clear things up, the ball is in his court. The longer he fails to reply the worse things will get for him.

[paul]

Robert,
Again I will ask you, do you believe people will go to hell because of what I do or do not tell them?

[paul]

Talk about ego. This is one of the greatest examples of a super ego that I have ever seen. It is clear from your above post that you are "miffed" at Rick Warren for not responding to you about your concerns. That is hilarious. You actually think that Rick Warren owes you a response.

[paul]

Robert,
I cant believe you actually posted this.....
"The longer he fails to reply the worse things will get for him."....That is really funny. Things seem to be going ok for him so far. It is some more of what I call Rick Warren envy. The bottom line is that you are upset that you are not on Rick Warren's radar screen. Repent.

[robert]

Paul, read your bible, open your eyes. Instead of rhetoric respond with truth! You have made your own decisions regarding the Gospel so then live by that. You are pragmatic with regards to Rick Warren so live by that.
I have supported what I have said to you with the Word of God, take it as it is.
With regards to Rick Warren, He owes me nothing, He does owe the international Christian community, which I am a part of, a explanation for his actions.
Don't be so angry, it clouds your judgement. Study the word to show yourself approved, handle the word of God correctly so you might not be ashamed.

[paul]

Robert,
I have read my bible. I dont know how you could post this ""The longer he fails to reply the worse things will get for him.", and claim that it is in love.

[robert]

It is simply a statement of fact Paul! No threat, no ill intent, just a statement of fact.
Why are you so rhetorical in your responses Paul?

I have to say that this has been a interesting and educating journey, into the blogosphere. A journey of agreement and disagreement. It has stretched me and challenged my faith, which is good, not nescessarily easy but good. Is it about me being right? No. It is about the word of God being right, which it always is.
I wonder, how many of you that say you are Christians believe that the word of God is perfect? Job 28 is one of my favorite passages of scripture and it describes the effort that it takes to extract the wisdom of God's word.
Do you read the bible and simply flesh things out, this is called personal opinion, or do you rely on the spirit of God to bring to light the truth of what the word says?;

6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,
l “ What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor th