...with Gentleness and Respect

After my meeting with Rick Warren I had decided that I would be commenting and critiquing some of the content that he taught at the Purpose Driven conference. I still intend to do that. However, after seeing the 'fire storm' that was created after I publicly thanked Rick Warren for his generosity and for being a gracious host it became sadly clear that there is another issue that must be addressed.

The chief passage regarding apologetics and defending the faith is found in 1 Peter 3:15. It reads:

1Pet. 3:15 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,

The battle for truth or the 'truth war' as some have called it, has taken a bad turn. Some segments of the battlefield have degenerated into ad hominem bickering and biting and toxic vitriol. This is not what Christ has called us to. In fact, that behavior is contrary to the clear teachings of scripture which call us to defend the faith with 'gentleness and respect'.

Anyone who knows me knows that I have a deep passion for the gospel and I will arm wrestle anyone in order to make the case that the message of 'Christ crucified for our sins' should be the central message of all of our sermons, lessons, studies, books and devotional material and many of you who read this blog and follow my public teaching share that same passion for the gospel.

What I find ironic almost to the point of irreconcilable contradiction is that there are some that claim to share a passion for the gospel yet they employ the most demeaning and vicious forms of personal slander and ad hominem attacks in their "defense of the gospel". I don't see how this contradiction is even possible because the gospel message is the good news of how "God so LOVED the world" that His only begotten Son died for my sins and yours on the cross and thereby reconciled us to himself in one supreme act of LOVE. Furthermore, God has entrusted us with this message of reconciliation.

2Cor. 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it. That being said, I am appealing to all of my Christian brothers and sisters who have a passion for defending the truth and defending the gospel to repent of ad hominem and personal attacks and let your actions and statements and debates always be seasoned with love, compassion, gentleness and respect.

Contrary to what you may think, love, gentleness and respect do NOT compromise the Gospel. Instead, love, gentleness and respect are the fruits of the gospel in our lives and they only make our defense of the truth even stronger and more convincing. In fact, it doesn't matter if your theological precision is accurate to one one hundredth of a percent and all of your apologetic arguments are irrefutable. Attacking and demeaning and belittling are not actions that are in keeping with the gospel.

In the days ahead I will be posting my Biblical critique of the material I heard at the Purpose Driven conference. I am not doing this in order to personally attack Rick Warren, nor am I interested in slicing Rick Warren up into little pieces so that I can feed him to a hungry school of 'theological pirana'. Instead, I will be posting these critiques as part of an ongoing debate and dialog. The debate and dialog is necessary so that we can all wrestle with the scriptures, defend the gospel, identify and correct error and build people up in the truth.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12 )

Comments

[Tom]

Iggy,
As someone who has ridiculed and mocked my wife, Ingrid Schlueter, in the most vile, personal manner on your "Online Discernment Mafia" weblog, I am glad you like Chris's post on gentleness, and I am looking forward to a new kindness and gentleness in your own life towards Christian women you don't agree with, and maybe even as apology as well. I'm thinking especially about the photograph you defaced of her on your website. It would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic, to see men like Richard Abanes, Chris Lions, Rick Frueh, and Iggy falling all over themselves to praise Chris Rosebrough for his new call for "gentleness". They, of course, would greatly prefer that those who speak truth are gentle with them, while meanwhile, they shred with their teeth those who have defended the Gospel.

[Matt S]

I agree 100 percent about the vitriol that is often spewed from the mouth of other Christians - it needs to stop. But I also do believe that we have a responsibility, as Christians, to protect the message of the Gospel. Like when Paul opposed Peter to his face because Peter lacked the boldness to associate with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11).

There is nothing wrong with wanting to solve social issues. There is even biblical basis supporting it (Acts 11:28-30 & Matthew 25). But when you mix it with the Bible, the message cannot be watered down. We were set apart for a reason. As it says in 2 Corinthians 6:14 -

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

From what I am understanding, Warren is using Jesus as his model for the PEACE plan. If you are going to do that, you have to remember that when Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and other "social issues," He did so with one purpose - to bring people unto Himself and to the Father (John 10:38). So if you are going to have a social plan in the name of Jesus, it better be centered on Christ - because that is what He centered his 'social work' on.

Also, this PEACE plan seems to so universally accepted, without any type of persecution from anyone that I have heard of. That is a red flag - not that we would like to be persecuted but that a plan that is globally accepted by other religions cannot, by its very nature, be centered on Christ (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is a watered down Gospel - made politically correct and with Christ taken out of the center, so that people are not 'offended.'

We can't sit by and let that happen within Christ's church just as Paul did not. As for gentleness and respect, I agree. But if people continue to preach a false Gospel, and thus send willing hearts to become goats instead of sheep, then I think it becomes time to 'oppose them to their face.'

[Chad]

Matt S -
I don't understand something. Are you saying that only people, events, or works that have some opposition to them are noble, true and of Christ? In other words, is the criteria for us to judge something as of Christ or not of Christ the number of people (and the "who" of that number) who hate it?

peace,
Chad

[Chris L]

It would be amusing, if it were not so pathetic, to see men like Richard Abanes, Chris Lions (sic), Rick Frueh, and Iggy falling all over themselves to praise Chris Rosebrough for his new call for "gentleness". They, of course, would greatly prefer that those who speak truth are gentle with them, while meanwhile, they shred with their teeth those who have defended the Gospel.

Tom, I would respectfully note that we praise any brother who treats other brothers in Christ in the manner Chris has done - seeking to understand, and not only to be understood. I would also respectfully disagree that the writers at CRN.Info (of which you only named one, myself) have ever "shredded" anyone for defending the Gospel. We have, though, taken to task the trucking in gossip and slander of the type condemned by Chris R. And it is that which we have praised in this post.

[Ken Silva]

This remains unchanged:

Rick Warren Violating 2 Corinthians 6:14-18...Again
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/05/rick_warren_vio.html

[Keith]

Chris Rosebrough: Thanks for all the time and effort you put into this site and A Little Leaven. Looking forward to your future posts re: your meeting with RW.

[Chad]

Ken,
Jesus must be on the top of your list as violators, then. As I recall, the "church" of Jesus' day were shocked and dismayed that the so-called Messiah would stoop so low. They killed him for it. Seems Warren is in good company.

[jeff]

So if RW did all these PEACE plan points and was successful measured by the world's standards, I don't think that means he would also be successful measured by God's standards. If he does all these things and preaches a watered-down gospel, it does not help the larger problem of unconverted people going to hell. Is the goal to make them happier/content on their way to hell, or tell them what they need to hear to keep them out of hell?

Mixing "the world" with Christians, and every other religion together will never produce anything that is “Christ centered” in the mixing you would have to compromise, and in the compromise you produce something “man made” and “man made” anything is defective. At the end of the day the PEACE plan may help some social problems, but may water down Christianity, lower the bar on the gospel, and produce a lot of “self righteous” goats, or at best very confused and frustrated sheep…

[Ken Silva]

Chad,

When you can show me where Jesus violated a proper view of Holy Scripture then we have something to talk about.

And keep on mind that it was Christ Himself Who sent the Reformers whose blood Warren desecrates with his spiritual adultery with the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

[Chad]

Jeff,
First of all, as someone wise on another topic stated - the bar is Jesus Christ. How do you "lower the bar"? What I hear in your post and that of most others here is that salvation does not come as grace any longer. Rather, it comes based on my ability as a pastor to keep the "bar" high enough so that only those astute enough to acknowledge it get in. That is not GOOD NEWS for any of us.

Second, many faithful followers of Christ for the past 2000 years (myself being one of them) would not truncate the work of Christ into something that merely gets us out of hell. You don't hear anyone in the gospels being gleeful that they have either been saved from an eternal hell or rescued to an eternal heaven simply because they believe, do you? No. The Gospel is far more robust than that, and has both temporal and eternal ramifications. Warren is keen to point out that for far too long (the past few centuries) the Church has been fixated with an individual soul's eternal destiny. This, however, is not the fixation of the first Christians or of Jesus. Rather, it is the proclamation that the Kingdom of God IS AT HAND. It is here, present, and now. We pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," and as Christians we work to bring the kingdom of God to others, proclaiming the GOOD NEWS that death is defeated and there is a Lord that is not Caesar.

The PEACE plan can help bring the kingdom of God to hell on earth. If nothing else, it allows Christians to sit at the table with people of other faiths and be a voice where a voice is needed. And more often than not, nobody cares how much you know till they know you care. If we preach a Christ who is reconciling all creation to Himself and yet we show a complete lack of care for that Creation and how it holds together than nobody cares about our Christ.

Who did Jesus share table fellowship with? The righteous? Who was his last meal and communion with? Was it not the very one who betrayed him and the one who would deny him and the rest who would desert him? Why are we so quick to condemn a fellow brother who is doing exactly what Jesus did again and again?

peace,
Chad

[Chad]

Ken,
Of course Jesus did not violate a "proper view" of Scripture. Who holds the proper view, Ken? You? If anyone, I would say Christ did, wouldn't you? Who did Jesus have table fellowship with? Who was Christ "yoked" with? Why was Jesus crucified, Ken? Was it not because the "Church" viewed his table manners as completely scandalous and contrary to anything the Messiah would suppossedly do? If anything, I would argue that you have an improper view and usage of 2 Corinthians 6, missing the context and audience completely in favor of your own personal agenda.

[Ken Silva]

Chad,

We have nothing further to talk about.

I've been to your blog and I saw what you've been reading. And as I now read your comments above here might I say that you have indeed understood quite well the counterfeit semi-pelagian "Christian" message in those books. peace.

[Chad]

Warren is sounding more and more like a prophet. On the Colbert Report he defined a fundamentalist as "one who stops listening." Ken, you and so many others prove this definition right time and time again.

What a shame that professing Christians are more interested in being right and dividing others than they are about truth and the heart of the gospel.

take care.

[Ken Silva]

Yeah, you take care too Chad. " 'one who stops listening'... What a shame that professing Christians are more interested in being right and dividing others than they are about truth and the heart of the gospel."

Ah, I see. So, that's a fundamentalist. And now I suppose that we're going to have to believe that you aren't responding here in the comments section because you think your understanding "about truth and the heart of the gospel" is "right."

[Chad]

Ken,
Even as a pastor I realize I know next to nothing when it comes to God and His magnificent plan for His Creation. I attempt to listen to all people and hear them out, and answer the questions asked of me. It is absurd of you to blow me or anyone else off because of their reading list. You, as a pastor and I assume a seminary trained one, should know better.

I asked you some questions and you refuse to answer them. That is your perogative. However, that is the party line taken by most people who hold views like yourself. When pressed, they resort to attacking a person's character, their reading list, who they sit with at a table, where they blog, etc. etc. rather than doing the one thing any reasonable, truth-seeking person would do: answer the questions and engage in respectful dialog. Like Warren said, fundamentalists have stopped listening.

Ball is in your court, Ken. Feel free to answer the very direct, simple questions I asked of you to flesh out your understanding of 2 Cor. 6 or feel free to dodge them and move on.

grace and peace,
Chad

[jeff]

Chad- "You don't hear anyone in the gospels being gleeful that they have either been saved from an eternal hell or rescued to an eternal heaven simply because they believe, do you? No. The Gospel is far more robust than that"

Great point -I agree with the above point. I regards to "that salvation does not come as grace any longer" I would be the first to tell you that salvation comes by Christ's finished work alone, a gift by His grace, thank God it's not left up to me!!!

I would say the same thing about RW, it seems he relies on his own performance rather then Christ, a lot. As an example, all the publicity he puts out about his PEACE plan seems self righteousness and a little prideful. RW’s need to get churches to convert to the PD model feels a little prideful as well

[Chad]

Jeff,
I am glad we can agree on the important issues. As I am sure you know, Warren is in agreement with you and I on those important issues as well.

As to the rest of it, you highlight something I think is beneficial. You said: "I would say the same thing about RW, it seems he relies on his own performance rather then Christ, a lot. As an example, all the publicity he puts out about his PEACE plan seems self righteousness and a little prideful. RW’s need to get churches to convert to the PD model feels a little prideful as well"

Here you use words like "seems" and "feels" as the proof against Warren, right? Let us keep in mind that no matter what something "feels" like to me or to you or anyone else that is not evidence that Warren is indeed "prideful" or "self righteous." Would you agree? Only God can see our hearts. We should be careful about judging someone based on what it "seems" to us or how we "feel" about their actions. Warren is getting his hands dirty doing the work he feels God has called him to do. We should be praying that his ministry bears much good fruit and sees many hearts turned to the Lord rather than trampling him underfoot because it "feels" wrong.

peace,
Chad

[jeff]

Good points on "seems" & "feels", I don't need to see RW's heart, I can rely on his fruit, and discern from what I see him preach and do in public. All of the brothers & sisters that try and correct him, and the amount of time we all try and understand all the places he twists & compromises the gospel bears witness, that there is something missing in RW's approach to the gospel & his teachings.

[LutheranLucciola]

Wow, this Purpose Driven critique has made your comment section a mini novel!

[Chad]

Jeff,
You say you can "rely on his fruit." Can you give an example of the bad fruit you have seen in his ministry?

Jeff, to be sure, there is something missing in ALL of our approaches to the gosple, not just RW. Anyone who claims to have the gospel nailed down 100% is more dangerous than Warren could ever be (or they are God). As for using the fact that Warren has critics as the basis for judgment I am not sure that is the best argument. The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, the watchdogs of the church in Jesus' day, all said the same thing of Jesus, remember? They debated amongst themselves how this Jew from Nazareth is twisting and perverting the Law of Moses over and over again. If nothing else, shouldn't that give us reason to pause when we so quickly point the finger at someone and accuse them of twisting or compromising scripture?

peace,
Chad

[LutheranLucciola]

Well, just for kicks, here's my take on PDL:

The first year I became Christian, 2003-2004, my Lutheran church decided to do PDL, and give it a Lutheran emphasis where needed. Parts of it were good for me in the very beginning, but the workbook started to bore the living daylights out of me quickly. And as a matter of fact, I just threw the workbook away after having it sit on my shelf undone.

It seemed to repeat things over and over, and never got me deeper into my faith past a point. To be honest, the main book is going in the garage sale we are having next week.

I'm not on a mission to end Rick Warren's career, but these non-denominational pastors just don't hit a home run for me anyway. Since I have found the Book of Concord, that's all I need at this point for a Concordance to the Bible.

Have a wonderful Sunday!
--LuLu

[Chad]

Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us."
But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, becasue you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward."

- Mark 9:38-41

Just thought a bit of scripture would be nice to chew on as I turn in for the night.

Grace and peace.
Chad

[Ken Silva]

How about 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

[jeff]

Chad- "The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, the watchdogs of the church in Jesus' day, all said the same thing of Jesus, remember?"
Wow that is a stretch, I pause to ponder, how RW's message would of been received 2000 years ago?

Let me ask you this question, if a preacher preaches a watered-down gospel, builds a really big church, 20,000-40,0000 people and a certian %, say 1% of those people become converted in spite of the preacher preaching a watered-down gospel (given that God does work in poor theology) does that make it right? or is that pragmatism, IE ends justify means?

[Janine]

Chris,
First let me be glad to say that I am happy that you still stand firm against the Purpose Driven movement. The fear here, however, is that by increments there is a softening. The Seeker Sensitive movement came in by increments. Parts of it "sounded" good and holy. Who doesn't want to win lost souls but an unconverted heathen? And so, we changed our churches. Out with the old, in with what sells. Unfortunately, that included any real depth to doctrine and any real allegiance to some of the key truths of God's Word such as holiness, judgment, and bearing one's personal cross.

Warren came along and hit it big at Lifeway Christian Stores and then throughout the world. He's a phenomenon such as hasnt' been seen since Graham. Mr. Christianity. America's Pastor. And, unfortunately a heretic whose methods and doctrine stray from from Scripture.

Chris, many of us have watched Preacher boy after Preacher boy latching onto Warren's books and then using them as the basis for which they are to "run" a church. A few years ago, I got an MDiv from a well respected Southern Baptist Seminary. And, I witnessed first hand how the marketers were marketing Purpose Driven to these young preachers, and how utterly undiscerning the young preachers were about Warren. Honestly, I don't remember anyone ever really even raising questions about him. So many of them (not all, thankfully) were lapping PD up like a parched man laps water in a desert oasis. I thought it mildly annoying that these men of God were so into the latest church growth fads, but really didn't suspect anything sinister. That was then.

At our old church, we had a church split move in on us after another pastor rather rudely created many "blessed subtractions" by his harsh ways of implementing a contemporary/seeker friendly/ Purpose Driven service. The people who moved in were devastated by having to leave their church home and were bound and determined that it wouldn't happen to them again. Some melded in well. Others, used the force of their personalities in order to get the church into the shape they wanted it. To make a long story short, church bosses resulting from a Purpose Driven split wrecked my former church.

So, after 12 years of membership, we moved to another church home. This one had a retiring pastor and an heir apparent who we loved. Shortly after we began to attend there, however, the church started its 40 days campaign (which it did twice) and the complexion of the church began to rapidly change. At first, it seemed like worship wars. But, it went far beyond that. It was only after things began to turn really ugly that it finally hit me (through some research) that it was the Purpose Driven Model infecting this church. By that point, and perhaps well before then, it was too late to save the church and many sheep (mostly seniors) have scattered to other churches, broken-hearted because of Warrenism. That pastor, whether he admits to it or not, is following the playbook line by line and now the people who built the facility and poured so much of their hearts into it have left with broken hearts. And, there is no talking to anyone on staff or anyone else who have been influenced by this model.

So, when you joke about Warren using a Jedi mind trick - yes, I'm afraid that this is where it is heading because otherwise biblically grounded men of God have been snookered and finding a church NOT using the PD Model in some way shape or form is becoming extremely difficult.

I respect your wanting to do your research. I respect your wanting to make sure all analysis is fully thought through and everything is right before you publish it.

However, I would ask that you stop for a moment and think of the people you are speaking to. Most folks who don't like Warren don't like him because they have experienced the fruits of his labors. Many have been hurt deeply, and like wounded sheep, they are going to bleat a bit. Please try to understand that. Many have already been lectured ad nauseum about how they just need to get with the program and how what they are feeling is wrong wrong wrong and they are the ones whose hearts are wrong.

There probably is a strong element of bitterness in your audience. Our churches are so important to our lives. It is hard not to react strongly when the thing which had no mercy towards them is being shown mercy. That's probably wrong, but it should be understood.

Therefore, even though the attacks are personal, try not to take them that way. It isn't you. It's Warren that is meriting this response.

And yes, we are fearful. We have lost too many from the true path already. We don't want to lose another. We need strong voices that will stand against the heresy and hurt perpetrated by Warren, Hybels, and others.

Don't forget, Warren had no problem equating fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam with one another. He is not our friend, no matter what kind of a smile he puts on his face, what kind of a conciliatory tone he emits, and how many of his critics he give expenses paid trips to in order to witness his conference.

We don't need more dialogue with Warren. We need God to get ahold of him and show him the damage he is doing in order for him to be given opportunity to repent. Short of full repentance, we don't really have much to say to him.

[Erwin]

Pardon my ignorance. I am new to this blog and am not really all that well versed on the theology of Rev. Warren. My question is, what does Rev. Warren teach with regard to the sacraments? Does he view Baptism and the Lords Supper as means of grace? Does he believe that infants are to be baptized because baptism is a work and gift of God in which He creates faith in people without any merit or worthiness in them? Does he believe that the real body and blood of Jesus are truly given to those who receive it at the Lord's table? Does he believe that partaking of the Lord's Supper is the very act of Jesus bringing Himself and heaven down to earth to impart heavenly gifts to us even as we are still on the earth? Does he believe that as we worship and receive the means of grace or the Gospel we are worshipping with the whole company of heaven and all of those saints who have gone on before us?

I was just curious.

[Mike]

Janine,
I am sorry that your experiences with PDL have been so negative. It is sad any time a church stops feeling like a place where you can come after a hard week and be rejuvenated and instead begins to feel like a battleground. Having come from a situation somewhat similar to yours, I have an idea of what it is like and I know how hurtful it can be. I would like to share what my situation was, maybe to give some perspective.

About 12 years ago my wife and I moved to a new town and began attending a local church. We had been dechurched until that point, but our son was about four and we wanted to get back into church for his benefit. Funny how parents will take steps to insure their children are fed spiritually, but many times we neglect our own spiritual wellfare, lol.

Anyway, the church had just gotten a new pastor. He came and visited us and pretty soon we joined the church. We weren't initially very involved, and so we were out of the loop and very surprised when the pastor resigned after 18 months of service. There were whispered allegations of him not visiting the elderly enough, wanting to change the worship style, and focusing too much on evangelism to the detriment of the church member's spiritual well-being.

Anyway our church didn't have a pastor for about 2 years, and my wife and I gradually became more and more involved in church work. Especially with there not being a fulltime pastor, many people had to pitch in to take up the slack.

We finally called a new pastor. A gentleman who was fresh of of seminary, but not young by any means, and very conservative in his views, however very evangelism oriented. He was very leery of PDL, but allowed a Bible study on PDL to be taught because several of the high school students were being confronted by it and wanted to know what it was about. The study was about the Biblical basis for the PDL movement. It was very candid, pointing out the good aspects and the bad aspects of the PDL movement and aimed at equipping the students to discern what was Biblical and what was not.

It was the end of our new pastor's career at my church. The whispers began about him wanting the church to become seeker sensitive. Then people started looking over his shoulder to make sure he was only using officially approved LCMS Bible study, liturgy and confirmation material. More whispers began. He was accused of being only focused on evangelism and not visiting enough shut ins or people in the hospital. Then a group of members wanted to start a contemporary service, to use more modern hymns. The pastor agreed to let them try a separate worship with different hymns and that's when things turned really nasty.

The attacks became personal, and the scrutiny became excessive. Anyone seen as an ally to the pastor was immediately attacked. Initially the attacks were whispered over the phone and in hallways, but eventually they were open and in congregation meetings. Eventually the pastor left and so did most of the people in the contemporary worship.

But the mantra that was repeated over and over was the pastor's opponents was "we are doing this to keep the gospel message pure", "if God want's people saved he will bring them to us", and "this church has been this way for 100 years, if they don't like it, they can leave".

The reason that I share this is just to point out that both sides of the issue have made some missteps. There are alot of "walking wounded" on both sides. I am not a fan of Rick Warren, but I can see he has some good ideas, and some of his ideas make me scratch my head and reach for a Bible.

However, whether we have been wounded by Warren's methods or just disagree with Warren's methods, we should always answer everyone with "...with gentleness and respect". And to quote Chris:

Therefore, I MUST always strive to remember that even when I am critiquing someone's doctrine that I am doing that IN SERVICE to that person and to the Body of Christ.

Critiques must always be done in love, to build up. Even building up people like Rick Warren.

-Blessings

[Matt S]

Chad,

It is not my intent to engage in any type of argument or to judge anyone or to point fingers or the like. My only belief in this matter is that if something is not in the Bible, the supreme authority, that we need to take a look at it and to attempt to correct it.

"All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

I think it is awesome to have some type of forum like this where brothers and sisters in Christ can come together, to fellowship and to sharpen each other.

In regards to persecution, no I don't take the belief that just because something is not persecuted, that it is not of Christ. I was just pointing out that when it is not persecuted or embraced by other religions, it is 'a red flag' that maybe just needs to be examined further. It may be doctrinally sound, or not. Just like any sermon you hear - you should search the scriptures to see if the things said are true.

That was a minor part of my post, but I apparently should have made myself a little more clear. For that I apologize.

In Christ - Matt S

[Chad]

Janine,
I, like Mike, am sorry that you had a negative experience with PDL. I would say, however, that for every story like yours there are a dozen positive stories of how chuches are being revived by the Spirit of God through changing some old habits and old ways of thinking.

As a pastor, I read your post and the first impession I got is that your problems don't really begin with PDL but with bad pastors trying to implement a new system. Anyone trying to steamroll a new way of "doing church" into a church, no matter what system it is, is not very wise and is asking for the same problems you enumerated.

With that said, however, no one is claiming PDL is perfect. No "system" is and no matter what we try to do as pastors we are still seeing through a glass dimly and groping for the infinite as finite beings. Yet we (I include Warren here) love God with all our heart, soul and mind and strive to live as Christ has commanded us to live.

I was saddened to read this: "It is hard not to react strongly when the thing which had no mercy towards them is being shown mercy. That's probably wrong, but it should be understood."

I agree with you, that is wrong. It is sad and somewhat surprising that people who follow the Christ who while hanging from a cross exclaimed, "Father, forgive THEM, for they don't know what they are doing" would be upset that mercy is being shown to someone they perceive as having hurt them.

grace and peace,
Chad

[Chad]

Jeff,
You said: Chad- "The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, the watchdogs of the church in Jesus' day, all said the same thing of Jesus, remember?"
"Wow that is a stretch, I pause to ponder, how RW's message would of been received 2000 years ago?"

Why is it a "stretch"? Do you deny that the religious right of Jesus' day did not conspire to kill him because they felt Jesus was twisting scripture, compromising it and holding the wrong kind of company? As for how RW's message would have been received then, I have no idea.

Jeff, you then ask this: "Let me ask you this question, if a preacher preaches a watered-down gospel, builds a really big church, 20,000-40,0000 people and a certian %, say 1% of those people become converted in spite of the preacher preaching a watered-down gospel (given that God does work in poor theology) does that make it right? or is that pragmatism, IE ends justify means?"

Forgive me, but I don't get this. First of all, where do you come up with the statistic that 1% are all that is converted to Christ? Secondly, God converts people, not pastors. Thus, IF only 1% are converted we should praise God for converting those whom God has converted, not Warren or effectiveness of the pastor's preaching. Thirdly, when pastors take the pulpit we pray that even if one person hears our message and turns to Christ we will give glory to God. I don't see why this is such a turn off when modern evangelicalism has long held to the idea that if YOU were the only person in the world that would believe Jesus would have died for YOU alone. Fourth and finally, we have NO IDEA where or when the Holy Spirit blows and whose lives the Spirit is even right now working within. IF, as you say, only 1% have been converted than that is 1% of the total in whom the Spirit has been moving. Is God divided? Does God only work partially in spots where the gospel, in your words, is "watered-down"? Are churches that have pastors you would agree with experiencing 100% conversion rates? Do we really want to make the litmus test for whether a message is or is not watered down how many converts there have been or how many new members have joined recently? Doesn't Jesus teach us to simply go and plant seeds and not worry about the growing, that is up to Him?

peace,
Chad

[Steve Newell]

Erwin,

Pastor Warren and Saddleback are part of the Southern Baptist Convention. As such, they do not view either Holy Communion or Holy Baptist as a means of grace, but just an ordinance. In the case of Holy Baptism, they view it as a public act of identification with Christ that a believe does. In the case of Holy Communion, they view it as a memorial meal that one has one an infrequent basis so remember Christ' death for our sins. There is nothing that happens when one is baptized or when one takes communion beyond what we see.

As one who was raised as a Southern Baptist, the concept of "means of grace" is foreign to most in the SBC when it comes to both Holy Communion and Holy Baptism. This concept is more common in Reformation and certain Reformed circles.

I hope this helps.

[Ken Silva]

Some of you might find this pertinent to the discussion here:

Bob DeWaay On His Meeting with Rock Warren
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/06/pastor_bob_dewa.html

[Daniel Chew]

Chris:

I second Jamie's call for you to remember the wounded sheep. It is not just "It is ok for me to praise Warren for his hospitality", which you are most definitely correct to do so, but how such an action will stumble them. Please at the very least remember them and not think of them as if they love controversy or are just plain nasty.

[jeff]

Chad- “Why is it a "stretch"? Do you deny that the religious right of Jesus' day did not conspire to kill him because they felt Jesus was twisting scripture, compromising it and holding the wrong kind of company? As for how RW's message would have been received then, I have no idea.”

You misunderstood me, or maybe I was not clear. The only thing I meant by that comment was, that I thought RW message 2000 years ago would not been an offense as a whole because I think he “removes” the offense when he preaches. In other words, my point was that if he had preached 2000 years ago, no one would have issue with him because he removes the offense in his message, thus changing the gospel, and not offending anybody, that’s all. I don’t “deny that the religious right of Jesus…”

In regards to the question:

“Let me ask you this question, if a preacher preaches a watered-down gospel, builds a really big church, 20,000-40,0000 people and a certain %, say 1% of those people become converted in spite of the preacher preaching a watered-down gospel (given that God does work in poor theology) does that make it right? or is that pragmatism, IE ends justify means?”

Sorry was tired last night, let me try and make it clear. I agree that salvation is only a supernatural act of God alone. I believe that even the “faith” to believe in God, was my first gift of the spirit. In other words, I don’t believe that “my decision, or my act of accepting Christ” was how I got saved. My act of accepting came after the Holy Spirit showed up, and supernaturally took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh that responds to Christ, that new creature, is Gods work alone. I don’t believe salvation is an “offer” left up for me, “In his wounds we ARE healed…”

My point of the question, was of pragmatism, does the ends justify the means of how a pastor preaches or runs his church. The example was, if a preacher changes the true gospel by removing the offense of wrath, sin, justice, sinners, “Christ crucified”. And only preaches love & mercy, at best and grows his church to 40,000 as a result. And out of that number a small % of people do get converted (by Christ alone) does that make it right that the preacher changed the true gospel message, by removing the offense from it?

[Chad]

It is interesting that the people who hold nothing back when they set out to smear another pastor and their congregations, rarely if ever taking into account their feelings or where they are on their own journey of faith are now suddenly concerned about the feeling of the critics when truth begins to emerge.

Aren't you the same people that parade behind the slogan, "If the truth hurts, tough!" What would be nice is if all the critics who have long touted such a slogan would acknowledge that such a posture is wrong and indeed adopt a posture of gentleness and respect in all their dealings.

peace,
Chad

[Ken Silva]

"such a posture is wrong"

So therefore, someone who says the above must now be a fundamentalist who has stopped listening to the other side because they think they are right.

[Chad]

Hi Jeff,
I am still not sure from where you are getting the idea that "only a small percentage" are being converted in a large church like Warren's. Are you speaking hypothetically or do you really know how many are converted?

I don't mean to belabor that point, but we simply don't know who is converted, being converted or will be converted. Of course you are right that it is never right for a preacher to change the message of the gospel. But you qualify that with the "true" gospel. What is that, exactly? Can any of us claim with absolute certainty that we know what that is? Warren is like any other pastor (human) who is actively seeking to love God with all his heart, soul and mind and point others to the Christ who has reconciled all things unto himself. His message is not HIS message that he has changed but rather what he has come to see as the truth of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. He may not preach hell and fire like someone might wish but that doesn't mean it is untrue. Furthermore, one can teach judgment without getting into the "wrath of God" speech. Judgement and grace go hand in hand, do you agree? The church has no shortage of pastors who tell their congregations they are miserable sinners and would call that the heart of the gospel and "true." Warren stresses the love of God as seen in Jesus Christ, who died for the entire world and has set us free. That is true. And as you stated, hypothetically or not, people are coming to God. So what does that mean?

grace and peace,
Chad

[Chad]

Ken *sigh*
Shall I assume by your refusal to answer any questions but just sling assumptions randomly at "those people" is further evidence that you don't really wish to have any honest and fruitful dialogue? Your flippant one-liners show a real lack of intellectual humility and honesty.

Feel free to jump in- just do so with a willingness to give and take and answer simple, direct questions asked of you, will you? I'll be happy to repeat them again for your convenience.

peace,
Chad

[Ken Silva]

Chad,

"by your refusal to answer any questions but just sling assumptions randomly at "those people" is further evidence that you don't really wish to have any honest and fruitful dialogue... Your flippant one-liners show a real lack of intellectual humility and honesty."

Seriously man, how many times do I have to show you that your own words refute your comments here until you see it? You tell us we can't do with the words of Rick Warren what you have just done with mine.

I didn't refuse to answer anything. My guess is that you just don't like what I said. And that is your prerogative; but I will tell you this, the Lord is using you to illustrate the double-mindedness of the many authors of the Emerging rebellion against sola Scriptura who have influenced you.

[Janine]

Chad,
I have a few observations about some flaws in your understanding of things.

First, there seems to be an implication that because there are dozens of happy stories to each single bad story that this somehow justifies the system. Jesus said it would be better for a millstone to be tied around one's neck than it would be for the person that causes ONE of these little ones to stumble. He also said that the good shepherd would leave the 99 and go after the one that got lost. In Warren's system, it is inherent that the "resistors" will go. In fact, it is celebrated with terms such as "blessed subtractions." When bad pastors try to implement the system, they aren't so much bad pastors as good disciples of Warren. In Christ's "system" the individual matters greatly. The goal is making disciples, not building crowds at the expense of the sheep.

Second, and this isn't just an issue with you but rather it is epidemic in Christianity today - is the idea that some man-made system is worth defending and pursuing. There is a whole church growth industry that has been put together with stategies of how to get people into the churches. Everything from having theatre seating, the best sound system money can buy, and even pyrotechnics is utilized in order to get them in. The implicit thought here is that the Word of God is not enough to draw people in.

This is not to say that all churches that use modern technology are off kilter; but a ton of them are. And, the Word of God plainly spoken IS enough. Our church runs close to 200 and meets in a 1950s elementary school gymnasium with no air conditioning and metal chairs. We don't use a bunch of gimics, but our preacher preaches Christ with boldness and clarity and the people are very faithful. We had evangelistic services where each night two different pastors preached full-length biblically strong sermons. The people came out and were blessed. But the church growth experts imply that this just isn't where it is at today. John MacArthur preaches the Word with boldness. He doesn't try to tickle ears. Look at how many God has drawn to that church.

No, Chad. The Word of God is enough. Equipping the saints in the service to go out and tell others is the way it has been done since the time of the apostles. Instead, I know of pastors who sit comfortably in their offices and wait for the flock to come to them. CEOs instead of shepherds is unbiblical and displeasing to the Lord.

Finally, Rick Warren has made statements such as

"If your church has been plateaued for six months, it might take six months to get it going again. If it's been plateaued a year, it might take a year. If it's been plateaued for 20 years, you've got to set in for the duration! I'm saying some people are going to have to die or leave. "

Lest he be misunderstood, Warren notes: "Moses had to wander around the desert for 40 years while God killed off a million people before he let them go into the Promised Land. That may be brutally blunt, but it's true. There may be people in your church who love God sincerely, but who will never, ever change. "

The strong implication here is that when you adopt Rick's method, it may take a while for your church to take off depending upon how long it has been plateaued, but if they don't leave, God will kill off those who stood in the way if you are patient enough.

The people do not perceive Rick Warren as having hurt them. He HAS hurt them. The most listened to voice in American Christianity who has the ear of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rupert Murdoch, and now even Tony Blair's world religions foundation basically says that churches are plateaued not because of the epidemic teaching of God's Word that we see today, but because people resist change, and preacher boys around the world grab on to it (because frankly it excuses their own accountability). These preachers then go into their churches and act like wicked shepherds leading the sheep to the slaughterhouse rather than good shepherd caring for each and every sheep God has placed in that fold. The sheep get hurt by these wicked shepherds, and Warren isn't somehow at blame?

I will go on record that I believe Warren is a false prophet and doesn't truly love the Lord, because he doesn't truly love His sheep. Being judgmental? No. Just looking at fruit. Warren and his disciples have a lackadaisical attitude towards the scattering of the sheep that is taking place in thousands of churches across this land. Actually, lackadaisical isn't the right word. Celebratory is closer to it. They see the loss of members as getting rid of dead wood. They never consider the possibility that it is really the writing of Ichabod on the door of a church that no longer follows God's way. Don't question the method. Don't question the fact that the people are leaving often because the gospel is getting watered down, the Lord is being revered less, and the preaching of the word is becoming an afterthought. Just stick to your guns and you'll grow a church.

This is what is sad, Chad, not the fact that the sheep are bleating about the treatment they have received in PD churches. In churches all over this land (it is not just an isolated few, which should tell you something), hearts are being broken by PD pastors who seek to implement the PD system to the expense of the flock.

Does every sheep always go about things the right way? No. Sheep can be stupid and reactionary in how they air their protests. But the shepherds are held to a higher standard.

Every pastor reading this should re-read Ezekiel 34. Somehow, our former pastor actually got another thwacking of the sheep sermon out of that one, but meditate upon the seriousness with which Christ views the treating of his sheep.

Towards the end of His time on earth, Jesus turned to Peter and said:
" Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"
Peter replied "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs."

Jesus said to him again the second time "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Peter saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

Finally, Jesus said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" And the Bible says "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, 'Lovest thou me?' And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus replied, "Feed my sheep."

He didn't say go out and feed those who may someday come into the fold. He said feed my sheep. He expects those in positions of authority to take care of His sheep. Unfortunately, in this day and age such care for the flock seems to be rare. But of course, we all know it is the sheep's fault that this is so.

Chad, preach God's Word and love His people. That's all he requires. Don't worry about the methodologies of men or being an apologists for goats like Warren. You have a lot more important things to concern yourself with. Be an evangelist to the lost and equip your people to do the same. Then you will see God's growth God's way.

[Chad]

Ken, so I guess when I said this: "Of course Jesus did not violate a "proper view" of Scripture. Who holds the proper view, Ken? You? If anyone, I would say Christ did, wouldn't you? Who did Jesus have table fellowship with? Who was Christ "yoked" with? Why was Jesus crucified, Ken? Was it not because the "Church" viewed his table manners as completely scandalous and contrary to anything the Messiah would suppossedly do? If anything, I would argue that you have an improper view and usage of 2 Corinthians 6, missing the context and audience completely in favor of your own personal agenda."

....and you responded with: "We have nothing further to talk about.

I've been to your blog and I saw what you've been reading. And as I now read your comments above here might I say that you have indeed understood quite well the counterfeit semi-pelagian "Christian" message in those books. peace."

And yet, you can say with a straight face, "I didn't refuse to answer anything."

Ken, I have been informed that this is a game you often play. I won't play it. You are being dishonest to say you care about only truth when you refuse to answer anyone who questions your conclusions and your own private interpretations of scripture.

I am always happy to discuss faith with anyone, Ken. You, however, are proving to be a person uninterested in honest discussion or reflection. Till that changes, God speed.

Chad

[Janine]

Chad,
Here is one more portion to meditate upon:

1 Peter 5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

[jeff]

Chad- “I don't mean to belabor that point, but we simply don't know who is converted, being converted or will be converted. Of course you are right that it is never right for a preacher to change the message of the gospel. But you qualify that with the "true" gospel. What is that, exactly?”

I think you are missing the point of my question (probably me, cause I am new to these blogs) the focus is not on the % of converts, if it’s 1 person on 10,000 people that get converted by the power of God, in a 40,000 person church. The focus is does that make it “right” for a pastor to change the gospel message? In other words, if we look at current “church grow” their fruit shows that the “ends justify the means”.

Let me define “change” of the “true gospel”. Let’s take the Apostle Paul as the benchmark for preaching a “true gospel” message, that is scandalous and an offense on the unconverted. It’s also biblical to not add or subtract from scripture, right? So, if a pastor consistently preaches only the “loving” side of God, and rarely ever publicly presses the wrath of God, intended for the sinner before conversion, isn’t that wrong? It’s as if the preacher is only ever revealing one side of the “coin”, leaving a dangerous hidden side of the “coin” that is never revealed, (show the good love, hide the intended wrath on the unconverted)

[jeff]

Janine- Wow, you just really blessed me, I agree with you 1000%, not because I identify & agree with what you are saying, but because it’s all TRUE, backed up by God’s Word! Truth, is Truth, no matter what! Truth cuts like a knife sometimes, its hard sometimes but it doesn’t change the fact that it's truth!

[Ken Silva]

"And yet, you can say with a straight face, 'I didn't refuse to answer anything.'"

What you quote above is my answer to your questions. I know very well what you believe from what I read at your blog and that you know the answers to the questions you ask via rabbinical rhetoric.

The one playing the game Chad is you, and it is me who won't play. Your implication is I have a private interpretation of Scripture which is at odds with God's intent with 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

1 Corinthinas 2:16 tells the Christian we have the mind of Christ and so we can know what God meant when He wrote 2 Cor. 6. He was telling us not to do the very things Rick Warren is currently doing.

You're welcome to defend Warren if you want to but your argument is with God and not me. Therefore I'm not going to continue wasting my time with your self-refuting statements.

[Paula]

hear hear ken.

Also, ChrisR, James Sundquist apparently tried to post and somehow he said it was considered 'spam' ? (not sure what he meant) -- might want to check into that, I would think that if Mr Broadway can post so should James be allowed.

[jeff]

Spam posting problem:

Had the same SPAM issue using Firefox, I am only able to post to this blog using Internet Explorer.

[catransplant48]

Paula, I have held my tongue while I've read several of your postings (here and in other places on Extreme Theology) but some of your comments come across as downright nasty. "Mr. Broadway"....we all know you mean Richard Abanes. Why not just write his name instead of taking a jab at him like that? Go ahead and fire away at me, but you really need to reign it in and tone it down. Praying for whatever the source of your anger might be....

[Bill]

Chris is correct in taking his time before preparing a response. In particular it's important that we remove the beam from our own eye first.

This is simply because there are more flaws in the United Reformed Churches of North America (Michael Horton pastors one of those churches) than in Saddleback Church. These reformed churches have all the creeds, but they are not spiritually stronger than Saddleback.

Let's look at the sin that abounds in churches like the one Michael Horton pastors before we look at Rick Warren. First off, in some of those reformed churches unless you are an ordained minister that went to Westminster Seminar or Mid America or any of their elite seminaries you can not preach a sermon. If the pastor is away on a Sunday and they can't get another ordained minister from their denomination to replace him, they play a tape! I'm asking the question what happened to the priesthood of all believers? If God calls you to Ministry you don't need a Seminary degree from Westminster Seminary, for all I know Paul, Peter, John were not highly educated but received the call of the spirit. Second, what happened to sola scriptura? It appears scripture is too complex for the common man to understand it, and these churches need catechisms (creeds). This is unbiblical. Third, As a result of these catechisms christians that believe in adult baptism and refuse to baptize their infant children have been excommunicated from the church. The sin of wrongly excommunicating somebody from the body of Christ is one of the most serious that can be committed in scripture. For Christ taught that we should love one another like Christ loved us, and furthermore in First John 1:7 "If we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin". Excommunicating bible believing christians (because of a catechism that shouldn't be there to begin with) is a very serious error.

So first we ought to admit our own sin and correct it and then we can correct the error of the Purpose Driven Churches. You see I read the book the Purpose Driven Church, and Warren's criticism of the traditional church model (vs. the purpose driven) is 90% correct. Warren misses the boat when it comes to gospel preaching, and we should reject him in that area, but that doesn't mean he's not right on a lot of other things that he teaches.

[Ken Silva]

"Warren misses the boat when it comes to gospel preaching"

Precisely why he should be rejected and why we're better off learning from another source.