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 )
I'm afraid some are more than fearful - perhaps paranoid? I'm sure Chris knows the damage PDL has caused. For many of us, perhaps in a way of speaking, he is the one who opened our eyes to it all. I think he has earned our trust in a godly way. It is Chris's right to put together a tactful way of picking apart the PDL for what it really is - and the means or method by which it is presented. I think we already know PDL is a danger, so is he writing this for us so that our ears might be tickled? I hope whatever he does, reaches far out to those who eat that drivel up.
Keep up the good work Chris!
Posted by: Ibanez Eric | June 01, 2008 at 04:38 PM
I just want to say for the record that I have never heard Rick Warren condemn or speak maliciously about any pastor or preacher even if he disagrees with them or if a preacher or pastor has made a poor decision/judgment call that has cost them their ministry. He might not agree with their philosophies or decisions, but he never personally attacks them. Instead he prays for them. I'd bet money he'd do that for any of you who are posting on this blog were any of your hidden agendas, self-centered manipulations or sins (and we ALL have them, myself included) to be made public. Just something to think about when being so quick to criticize.
I have thick skin. I know a firestorm of verbal bullets are coming my way for saying this. Fire away.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 01, 2008 at 05:02 PM
"I'm afraid some are more than fearful - perhaps paranoid?"
Well, I'm afraid some are more than trusting - perhaps gullible?
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 05:44 PM
The Christian Pragmatist will always be at odds with God’s will & His gospel, because he relies on programs & methodology rather than they power of the Spirit. The Pragmatist looks at the “man-made” and calls that spiritual results, and then if the Spirit isn’t working, the Pragmatist will invent more programs in the hopes he will get the correct results. To a Pragmatist the result is more important than how he gets there. The Pragmatists will use anything including Jesus, His gospel, as the “means” rather than the goal. “Christ alone” is never the goal of a good Pragmatist! The goal ends up being the “business” of Christianity. The “ends” should never justify the “means”, cause when it does the spiritual is replaced with the “man-made”
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 07:13 PM
And one last thing about Modern Reformation and Michael Horton. The guy talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? I mean, I listen to him and love his program and his preaching. But do churches like the one he pastors really believe in christian freedom? I mentioned three errors / sins of the United Reformed Churches in North America. Let me add another legalism that plagues these reformed churches that follow the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort. The Heidelberg Catechism makes it sinful for anybody to work or do activities on a Sunday (you can't put gas on your vehicle on a Sunday, you can't play sports or go to a restaurant or shopping on a Sunday). This is what Michael Horton's church imposes on its members, so much for the gospel and christian freedom, when the congregation is burdened by legalism.
The Westminster Confession is similar to the Heidelberg Catechism with regard to the Sabbath. On this aspect I am with Rick Warren, it's about deeds and not creeds. These creeds encroach on the gospel and christian freedom. Calvin and Luther would not approve of these catechisms and confessions. Calvin used to go bowling on the Sabbath and Luther said he would party on the Sabbath to celebrate christian freedom. For the Sabbath was made for man and not the man for the Sabbath as Jesus taught.
Posted by: Bill | June 01, 2008 at 07:37 PM
JANINE: 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.
Chad: My only purpose for pointing that out is the obvious: That it is not all doom and gloom as far as PDL is concerned, as your prior testimony seemed to imply.
Janine: 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.
Chad: Yes, I agree that the individual matters greatly, but not to the exclusion of the whole. I don’t think you are trying to make a very individualistic system. However, I am interested in what your sources are for what you claim here. Everything I read in PDC (Purpose Driven Church) is geared towards making deeper disciples of Christ. And lets not be too hasty in coloring any language of “blessed subtractions” as negative. Let’s be real – there are certain people that God in his wisdom weeds out from a church. I doubt that Warren encourages us to rejoice because people are lost. Do you?
Janine: 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.
Chad: Janine, EVERY church has a “system” whether they acknowledge it or not. No system is perfect – Warren even states as much. We are human and fallible. It should bring us to our knees in humility when we realize that God has chosen people like us in the Church to show grace towards. If God has chosen to bestow grace upon a crazy bunch like us than how much more hope is there for all humankind?
And again, I appreciate your personal testimony about how God is working in your own neck of the woods. We all rejoice with you that God sees fit to use those in your midst to grow God’s church. Just be sure you don’t box God up and insist that as it happens in your church so be it in all churches. There are many parts to the body and all are needed. Some churches are gifted in other areas than what yours is, and what mine is, and what Warren’s is, and what MacArthur’s is.
Janine: 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. "
Chad: Can you give the source for these quotes? But also, what do you find wrong here? What is your major disagreement in what he is saying?
Janine: 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?
Chad: Again, what I see in your posts Janine is someone who personally has been hurt by a very unwise pastor. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what it looks like. You seem to be painting with broad strokes who Warren is and what PDL is based on your own personal experience rather than hearing Warren out yourself. Let’s look at the facts…
“There is no single key to church health and church growth; there are many keys. The church is not called to do one thing; it is called to do many things. That’s why balance is so important.” (page. 128, PDC).
“Integrating your purposes into every area and aspect of your church’s life is the most difficult phase of becoming a purpose-driven church…The application of your puposes wil require months, maybe even years, of praying, planning, preparation and experimenting. Take it slow. Focus on progress, not perfection. The end result in your church will look different from Saddleback and every other purpose-driven church.” (137, PDC).
“What If Our Church Doesn’t Match Our Community?
1. Build on your strengths. Don’t try to be something you’re not. If your church is primarily made up of elderly folks, decide to become the most effective ministry to senior citizens that you can possibly be. Don’t try to become a baby-buster congregation. Strengthen what you are already doing and don’t worry about what you can’t do.
2. Reinvent your congregation. Reinventing yoru congregation is when you intentionally change the makeup of yoru church in order to match a new target (community). You completely replace all the old programs, structures and worship styles with new ones.
a. I want to be very clear: I DO NOT ADVISE THIS! It is a painful process and may take many years. People will leave the church due to the enormous, inevitable conflicts. If you lead this process, you will probably be vilified as Satan incarnate by older members unless you’ve been there longer than everyone else.
b. Don’t ever consider this option in a church with over one hundred attenders unless God tells you to. It is a road to martyrdom.
3. Start new congregations….
(from pages 179-180, PDC)
Chad: You see Janine? Based on the above statements by Warren I am finding it hard to believe that Warren gets all the blame for the turmoil you have personally seen done by pastors wanting to reinvent themselves and their congregation. If you want to blame someone, blame the pastor who hurt you by ignoring good advice and choosing to do things their way or the highway. I also find it hard to believe that he advocates what you say he advocates. But I will be happy to look at the sources from where you quote. Perhaps there is something I am missing.
Again, I am sorry you had such a bad experience. The same can be said of all churches. People are people. But to call Warren an apostate is really going on a limb. I would be careful about who we judge and how we judge them. In fact, I would say don’t do it at all. It serves no purpose and in the end only causes bitter division and animosity in the body of Christ. Our task is to love God and love our neighbor. IF you should perceive Warren or any of his minions as your enemy than your task is just as clear: pray for them.
Grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Oh, and one more thing: I am not a PD pastor nor do I run a PD church. In fact, I don't see myself as ever being one. Much of what he suggests, however, from a church management standpoint is spot-on and great advice for any pastor to heed. But as he himself asserts, not every church is going to be like his, nor should they be.
I am not so much defending Warren (I respect him and what he has done but could care less if I am proven wrong about him) as I am defending Christian unity. It saddens me greatly to see sites like this and others (alittleleaven, Silva's site, Slice, etc) that exist solely for the purpose of touting their own very reductionist and legalistic form of religion and damning all others. I would certainly count the absolution of all such websites (hatesites) as "blessed subtractions." The energy used to run a site like this could be used towards so much good - to so much of the stuff that the church of Christ was meant to do. It is sad to see it go to waste to do nothing but judge others and point fingers.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 07:50 PM
Jeff: 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, I disagree that the wrath of God is a necessary (even essential) component for the sinner before conversion takes place (if that is what you were intimating). So no, it is not wrong for a pastor to highlight the love of God over the wrath of God. The love of God is the predominant and most extensive understanding we have of God as revealed to us in Jesus Christ. That is what we preach. But, we must also preach judgment (as going hand in hand with grace). The catch is, what we mean by "judgment" might mean different things.
Finally, you are right to say it is wrong to "change the message." I don't see Warren doing that, however. Nor have I seen any of his detractors prove that he has. Rather, like Ken Silva has shown a wonderful gift for, they dodge the questions and the evidence and resort to attacking your reading list all the while having the gall to say they answered your questions! :) Oh what a silly game.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Chad pontificates sites e.g. such as Chris Rosebrough's "A Little Leaven" and mine: "exist solely for the purpose of touting their own very reductionist and legalistic form of religion and damning all others."
Uh-oh, now you've crossed the line over into flat out hypocrisy. How do you know this? Answer: You don't. You don't know any more about me than you would say I do about Rick Warren.
So, if you can make the above judgment then we would have every right to make the same kinds of judgments, e.g. your beliefs based on your blog and Warren's teachings based on his books and sermons.
Yet you've monopolized much meta by way of Rosebrough's kindness of letting you post comments here to argue against what you have just done yourself. Maybe you ought to take your own advice there Chad.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Chad- "It saddens me greatly to see sites like this and others (alittleleaven, Silva's site, Slice, etc) that exist solely for the purpose of touting their own very reductionist and legalistic form of religion and damning all others"
That's a little harsh..
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Ken,
My words are fair game. It was my "reading list" that you offered as proof for your first cursory judgment of who I am and what I stand for. If you need me to prove that to you as well, I can point you to your first post to me.
But you aren't really here to discuss facts, are you?
take care, Ken.
Chad
Jeff - Harsh, perhaps. Didnt you say this at 11:27AM: "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!"
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 08:25 PM
Only one of us avoiding the facts and issues here Chad. A little hint: It isn't me.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 08:28 PM
(posted yesterday...no response)
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.
This is one of many. Ken, there are a slew of quotes and facts above. Pick any that you would like to discuss. I'll even give you the choice. Just make it a real issue, Ken. This is the last time I'll address you, sir, unless you can show some maturity.
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 08:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 08:37 PM
"If drug smugglers and terrorists can use networks to their advantage, certainly we can do the same in attacking spiritual emptiness, corruption, poverty, disease and illiteracy. I call these five giant problems the Global Goliaths because they affect billions, not just millions, of people. Only a global network can take on problems of this size." Forbes Quote.
How many problems are in this quote? Where is sovereignty of God? I guess it's a good thing God has RW on His side.
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 08:41 PM
Take care, Ken.
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 08:42 PM
"A few years ago we took on an enormous task. Our members committed to providing three meals a day, for 40 days, to the 42,000 homeless people living in Orange County. The undertaking required us to serve 5.8 million meals in 6 weeks. How did we do it? With our network. Each small group assumed responsibility for the homeless in its own neighborhood. By decentralizing the operation among 3,300 small groups, we accomplished what had never been done before.
Now extrapolate that potential to include the members of millions of congregations worldwide. You can see why churches are a vital leg of the stool." Forbes Quote
Or this one, there again it's all about RW, his network, his glory...
Do you think God's glory, God's supernatural work, ever entered into RW mind when he answered the Forbes reporter?
1"Beware of(A) practicing your righteousness before other people in order(B) to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2(C) "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may(D) be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have(E) received their reward.
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 09:10 PM
"Well, I'm afraid some are more than trusting - perhaps gullible?"
Thanks for taking the time to respond to what I said. But I find your statement hypocritical because being gullible is believing something without a need for credibility. Where as I'm waiting for the proof to make a judgement against Chris. So far he has been credible so I wouldn't sweat it unless there was proof of the contrary.
Posted by: Ibanez Eric | June 01, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Chad wrote:
"It saddens me greatly to see sites like this and others (alittleleaven, Silva's site, Slice, etc) that exist solely for the purpose of touting their own very reductionist and legalistic form of religion and damning all others. I would certainly count the absolution of all such websites (hatesites) as "blessed subtractions."
Chad, your religious intolerance exceeds anything I've seen or heard from anybody on this board. You know, as I stated, Rick Warren is a false teacher. With that said all my posts so far focused primarily in highlighting the good in Rick Warren and all that is wrong with Reformed churches that follow the Heidelberg catechism. With that being said let me remind you that sites like Ken Silva's, Slice, Modern Reformation, alittleleaven etc. are defending the gospel. They are preaching the gospel in its purest form. For you to suggest that those sites is implying that the gospel should stop being preached. I am sorry but I do not hear the full counsel of the gospel preached from Rick Warren's mouth and these sites that you do attack are doing the job.
Chad, you also wrote: "Jeff, I disagree that the wrath of God is a necessary (even essential) component for the sinner before conversion takes place (if that is what you were intimating). So no, it is not wrong for a pastor to highlight the love of God over the wrath of God."
Look what did Christ come for? To save sinners from the wrath of God. Sinners need to know that they deserve death for disobeying God's law and that the wrath of God awaits them. Without that acknowledgment by sinners, there's no salvation. What do sinners need to be saved from? From hell, from the wrath of God. So how can anybody repent and be saved from hell and the wrath of God if they are not taught about it. Preaching of the law (whose purpose is to convict the sinner of his sin as Paul taught) and the penalty of sin (hell which is the wrath of God) is essential to bring a sinner to repentance.
Now Warren's teachings are unbiblical not only because he doesn't preach the wrath of God, but there are several other problems with his teachings.
1) In his books the purpose driven church and the purpose driven life he consistently misquotes scripture to prove his point. Sometimes he's right in what he says but pulls a piece of scripture that refers to something totally different. He uses several translations of the bible to do this, some of them paraphrase translations.
2) He preaches a man centered message and not a gospel centered message with Christ and the cross first and foremost.
3) There's no biblical foundation for seeker sensitive preaching. Warren argues that an unbeliever needs to feel good after hearing a sermon. I'm sorry but an unbeliever needs to either repent from his sin and believe in Jesus Christ or reject the gospel and stay in his sin. Either way an unbeliever won't walk out of church as an unbeliever and loving the message he heard if the gospel is preached. Seeker sensitive preaching that will please the sinner without converting him through repentance is unscriptural. Seeker sensitive preaching will please the sinner (without making him repent) and it will offend the bible believing christian. The gospel on the other hand will do the opposite offend the sinner (or cause him to repent) and please the Christian.
4) Warren argues that the church should have many seekers in its regular Sunday service and that a seeker sensitive message should be preached. The bible talks about the church as the assembly of believers where the sacraments are administered to believers only. The bible also teaches that there is one gospel, not a a gospel that ought to be preached to believers and a seeker sensitive one for non-believers.
5) Seeker sensitive preaching is man centered. It's about a man's needs in the world, the sinner's material needs, like improved relationships, career, an abundant life, overcoming addictions, better health etc. The gospel is about sin and salvation from sin thought Jesus Christ finished work on the cross and his resurrection. It is about Christ, it is god centered instead of man centered. Warren admits seeker sensitive preaching does not edify christians, well why does he preach it then? Warren argues it's for unbelievers, but the bible doesn't talk about two messages one for believers and one for unbelievers.
6) Warren consistently denies the power of God and God's methods (the gospel) in the conversion of the sinner. Instead he designed seeker sensitive methods. Warren thinks his methods are better than God's, his wisdom higher than the wisdom of God. Warren does not believe that the preaching of the Christ is God's only way to save sinners, and that the message alone is God's only method to convert the sinner.
7) Warren doesn't believe that the gospel sanctifies. He clearly states that more is needed than Christ. In order to overcome addictions and hang-ups, in his view we need his "Celebrate Recovery" Program which he sells to churches.
8) Warren teaches about different levels of commitment for christians. There's a church covenant that Purpose Driven church members have to sign. This church covenant includes a commitment to tithing and to not criticize the church leadership. This is certainly unbiblical.
9) Rick Warren requires commitments like the ones in his 40-day programs and other commitment that are requested from the congregation at a sermon. These commitments or promises to god are unbiblical.
And the list goes on and on. These are just a few of the teachings of Rick Warren that are utterly unbiblical.
Posted by: Bill | June 01, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Jeff,
It sounds like a pastor giving a reporter the practical "how-to" scoop on a mission they recently did. If Piper said the exact same thing you would be assuming that of course this mission never left the ground without first having weeks, if not months, of prayer and that God was glorified throughout.
If we scoured Piper or MacArther's stuff (which I have much of and have read) do you think we might find them explaining the nuts and bolts of something like Warren did here? Would it be fair of us to then jump on them for not mentioning God after every 5th word?
Let's give a pastor, a professing Christian, the benefit of the doubt, shall we? This is still the same guy whose book you all hate begins with the chapter titled, "IT ALL STARTS WITH GOD."
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 10:01 PM
"Well, I'm afraid some are more than trusting - perhaps gullible?"
"I find your statement hypocritical because being gullible is believing something without a need for credibility. Where as I'm waiting for the proof to make a judgement against Chris."
Back up the the hypocrisy wagon I.E. Who's talking about Chris? I'm referring to those so quick to believe what Warren says.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 01, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Bill,
I disagree with your opinion about what constitutes the "true gospel" and that true salvation does not come unless one first knows of the wrath of God. I could give you a long list of stories that show this to be the case, but it would be easier to simply point you to the gospels. They are too numerous to list here.
However, if you would be interested in a more detailed discussion about all of that (and it is a very big subject) I would be happy to talk about it. Perhaps this thread is not the best place? I have been meaning to start a discussion on my blog about salvation and what it entails. Perhaps we can chat there? In either case, it is late here and I am heading to bed shortly.
As for your other proofs against Warren I would be greatly interested in knowing your sources. Numerous times you make the claim that "Warren stated," or "Warren believes" and yet you give no reference. If you could provide that I would appreciate it.
Till we get a chance to chat again, grace and peace.
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 01, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Chad,
Everything I wrote about Warren in my last post comes from either the purpose driven life or the purpose driven church books.
With regard to salvation and the absolute need of crushing the sinner with the law and the consequences of sin (eternal death and torment in hell) please go to Way of the Master. http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
The main reason for false converts today according to the evangelistic Ministry of Way of the Master is that the law and hell are not preached. I agree with that assessment.
Posted by: Bill | June 01, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Chad- "It sounds like a pastor giving a reporter the practical "how-to" scoop on a mission they recently did"
Sounds to me like a pastor robbing God of His due glory & credit. It's a matter of the heart, when a pastor is quoted twice, and he gives himself all the glory, it bears witness that RW thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think...
(Isaiah 10:12-15)
I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness. For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding." Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. (Isaiah 10:12-15)
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Chad- You asked what Piper would say, here you go. (It is amazing what can be accomplished when the Spirit is working, The Spirit in John Piper sure is clear, amen!):
"...There is a test that I often use to humble myself before the Lord. I commend it to you. Consider the spontaneity and intensity of your anger when someone slanders you or interrupts your concentration or cuts in front of you at Country Club grocery store, and compare those emotions with the spontaneity and intensity of your indignation for God when he is slandered and his commandments are broken and people put themselves before him. Or consider your spontaneous excitement when you get a raise, or an unexpected tax break, or a compliment from your superior; and compare this spontaneous rise of emotion with the spontaneity and intensity of your excitement and emotion when you contemplate the character of Christ and the glory of God. A moment's reflection will humiliate virtually all of us. Our hearts are alive and quick and sensitive and responsive and full of emotion toward things that concern our material pleasures and our ego. But O, how slow and dull and unresponsive and dryly intellectual we are toward the reality of God. Therefore, let us not point our finger at others who hock the glory of God for the cracked marble of self-reliance. There is ample evidence in our own emotional life to prove that we, too, have barely begun to set our affections on the diamond of God's glory." -John Piper-
Posted by: jeff | June 01, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Chad: My only purpose for pointing that out is the obvious: That it is not all doom and gloom as far as PDL is concerned, as your prior testimony seemed to imply.
Janine: I didn't say it was ALL doom and gloom. However, the BEST I have seen from it has been very shallow biblical teaching and Christians feeling good about being socially active. I don't see much depth of growth with Warren and that isn't surprising considering that he doesn't seem to know how to exegete the text very well.
Chad: Yes, I agree that the individual matters greatly, but not to the exclusion of the whole.
Janine: First, I did not exclude the whole. The wholeness of the body is what is at stake though. When you say of the eye we have no need of you, then the body suffers. The eye suffers. And Christ's Words are not being followed.
Chad: I don’t think you are trying to make a very individualistic system.
Janine: I'm trying to point the church back to the Bible away from this error that is infecting the church like a cancer.
Chad: However, I am interested in what your sources are for what you claim here. Everything I read in PDC (Purpose Driven Church) is geared towards making deeper disciples of Christ. And lets not be too hasty in coloring any language of “blessed subtractions” as negative. Let’s be real – there are certain people that God in his wisdom weeds out from a church.
Janine: Here is a quote: “Be willing to let people leave the church. And I told you earlier the fact that people are gonna leave the church no matter what you do. But when you define the vision, you’re choosing who leaves. You say, “But Rick, yes, they’re the pillars of the church.” Now, you know what pillars are. Pillars are people who hold things up … And in your church, you may have to have some blessed subtractions before you have any real additions” -Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church.
First, Warren is not talking about lost people, he is talking about people who have sacrificed their lives for the good of that local body of believers. These folks are told in the world "you're too old, or your views are old fashioned" and shoved aside on their secular jobs. Now, they face the same thing in the church and it isn't right.
Second, God isn't weeding folks out in this scenario. Warren says YOU define the vision and YOU are choosing who leaves. That isn't about God at all. It is about wicked man's wicked ideas.
Chad: I doubt that Warren encourages us to rejoice because people are lost. Do you?
Janine: I don't think Warren personally cares that much. He has had numerous audiences with many lost people, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc. His message to them, "You make God smile when you do what He made you to do." These are lost people, Chad. He's basically saying everything is okay with them as long as they do something nice with their lives. Of course, lost is lost and they were no more or less lost because Warren didn't share the gospel with them, but it does make one question whether he cares about their souls. Beware when the world adores you.
Chad: Janine, EVERY church has a “system” whether they acknowledge it or not. No system is perfect – Warren even states as much. We are human and fallible. It should bring us to our knees in humility when we realize that God has chosen people like us in the Church to show grace towards. If God has chosen to bestow grace upon a crazy bunch like us than how much more hope is there for all humankind?
Janine: Chad, it isn't an excuse. Sound systems are not bad and having a bad one can be a distraction. But, they are tools. They are not the draw. The Word of God is the draw. Unfortunately, in today's environment there is so much emphasis on making church comfortable for the "seeker" that the comforts are seen as the draw and the Word of God, if it is even present, is seen as secondary. We need to get back to the Word. These other things will burn up like everything else one day. God's Word will endure.
Chad: And again, I appreciate your personal testimony about how God is working in your own neck of the woods. We all rejoice with you that God sees fit to use those in your midst to grow God’s church. Just be sure you don’t box God up and insist that as it happens in your church so be it in all churches.
Janine: I am not boxing God up. There are different expressions to worship and different ways of "doing church." However, I do believe that ALL ways must adhere to the examples given in the Word of God. If the Word of God is watered down, taken out of context, or otherwise downplayed, there is a problem. If there is a lack of reverence for the Lord, there is a problem. If some people are expendable, there is a problem. I believe these are general principles that can fit into many different molds of church, and I believe they are biblical.
Chad: There are many parts to the body and all are needed. Some churches are gifted in other areas than what yours is, and what mine is, and what Warren’s is, and what MacArthur’s is.
Janine: I agree.
Janine: 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. "
Chad: Can you give the source for these quotes? But also, what do you find wrong here? What is your major disagreement in what he is saying?
Janine: Certainly. Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox- http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1
Second, what is my major disagreement? Aside from the general dismissal of whole segments of the body of Christ because they don't go along with Rick's system, it is the lack of any sort of personal responsibility that Warren has in making sure that the "system" is what's right for a church to begin with. Nevermind that people who have been Christians longer than many of these Pastors have been alive have biblical objections to what is going on. There is no room for deviating from the course set. Oh, there is a little dialectical process going on. Folks naturally want to get along and avoid conflict. But, there is no consideration for the fact that the system may indeed be not just right for the church but wrong period. Just let the dissenters die. That'll solve the issue.
Chad: Again, what I see in your posts Janine is someone who personally has been hurt by a very unwise pastor. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what it looks like. You seem to be painting with broad strokes who Warren is and what PDL is based on your own personal experience rather than hearing Warren out yourself. Let’s look at the facts…
Janine: Actually, Chad. I personally wasn't as hurt as others. I witnessed many who were though. I was in the praise band as the pianist. I was a key member of the team. I had a Sunday School class where I was personally able to teach what I wanted to teach. I'm 40 years old and for the most part didn't have anything personally done against me. What did hurt though was to see two churches destroyed by church growth stategies and Warrenism in particular. I witnessed older people who were literally afraid they were being followed by leadership in the church. Were they? Probably not, but such was the atmosphere. I witnessed a charter member of the church who had been there for 47 years being stalked from the pulpit that he would "reap a whirlwind" if he didn't stop objecting to the vision of the church. That particular day, several in the congregation who didn't know what was going on started asking questions. Eventually, there was a mass exodus of older people, but prior to this we left because we could no longer support the direction the church was heading. Because of my very prominent position in the church, I felt that it would be more healthy for the church to leave rather than sit there in the pews and not participate in the surface. I didn't want to be a lighting rod for the division that was already occuring.
Chad: “Integrating your purposes into every area and aspect of your church’s life is the most difficult phase of becoming a purpose-driven church…The application of your puposes wil require months, maybe even years, of praying, planning, preparation and experimenting. Take it slow. Focus on progress, not perfection. The end result in your church will look different from Saddleback and every other purpose-driven church.”
Janine: What does "Progress" look like? Numerical growth? In Warren's world, Laodicea is king and Smyrna is out of touch. The church doesn't need a single Purpose Driven product to be a success. They need to follow the Word of God. Pleasing God is the O N L Y thing that matters.
Chad: “What If Our Church Doesn’t Match Our Community? 1. Build on your strengths. Don’t try to be something you’re not. If your church is primarily made up of elderly folks, decide to become the most effective ministry to senior citizens that you can possibly be. Don’t try to become a baby-buster congregation. Strengthen what you are already doing and don’t worry about what you can’t do.
2. Reinvent your congregation. Reinventing yoru congregation is when you intentionally change the makeup of yoru church in order to match a new target (community). You completely replace all the old programs, structures and worship styles with new ones.
a. I want to be very clear: I DO NOT ADVISE THIS! It is a painful process and may take many years. People will leave the church due to the enormous, inevitable conflicts. If you lead this process, you will probably be vilified as Satan incarnate by older members unless you’ve been there longer than everyone else.
b. Don’t ever consider this option in a church with over one hundred attenders unless God tells you to. It is a road to martyrdom.
3. Start new congregations….
(from pages 179-180, PDC)
Janine: Chad, I have to look at Warren as a whole. We he comes out and forcefully denounces the moving away from Scripture and the cavalier attitude towards the loss of the "pillars" of the church, he will have a shot at me taking such a statement seriously.
Chad: You see Janine? Based on the above statements by Warren I am finding it hard to believe that Warren gets all the blame for the turmoil you have personally seen done by pastors wanting to reinvent themselves and their congregation.
Janine: Didn't lay ALL of the blame at Warren's feet. Pastors are highly accountable. But he is a key contributor.
Chad: If you want to blame someone, blame the pastor who hurt you by ignoring good advice and choosing to do things their way or the highway. I also find it hard to believe that he advocates what you say he advocates. But I will be happy to look at the sources from where you quote. Perhaps there is something I am missing.
Here is an example of Warren's training. As a former church staffer, I know some people truly do just exist to cause trouble. In Warren's world and his regular ministry toolbox lessons for pastors, there is no differenciating between troublemakers and those who may have legitimate gripes about the direction of the church.
DEALING WITH TROUBLEMAKERS
http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=337&artid=10953&expand=1
HANDLING OPPOSITION
http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=343&artid=11031&expand=1
Personally, I believe that people become members of a church two ways.
1) They join a church
2) God adds them to a church
The former is predicated upon the choice of the individual and tends to produce a "me-church" mentality. We join because of a cool music program, or great kids activities or prestige or whatever.
When God adds folks to a church, however, He does so with a plan for those individuals in the church (of course He is sovereign over the other type as well). These members tend to be more mature Christians who are 'doers' and self-sacrificers for the good of the body.
What I have witnessed is a large group of people who fell into that second category - very active in the church - very much part of the family - suddenly cast aside. Many people tried to talk to leadership, most nicely. In a few cases it got ugly. But the warnings of these Saints went unheeded.
NOTHING I have seen emphasizes the need for the Pastor to check and double-check that his vision is truly from God. Like Rehoboam, Pastors seem to be encouraged to persevere in spite of what some wiser Christians may be saying to them. There is no encouragement for pastors to double-check whether or not the vision is from God. There is no "self-check" involved in Warren's methods.
Chad: Again, I am sorry you had such a bad experience. The same can be said of all churches. People are people. But to call Warren an apostate is really going on a limb. I would be careful about who we judge and how we judge them. In fact, I would say don’t do it at all. It serves no purpose and in the end only causes bitter division and animosity in the body of Christ.
Janine: Oh Chad! You're missing it here. We ARE to judge the leaders over us by the Word of God! Paul commended the Bereans for judging His Words and was not hesitant to those who perverted the gospel "accursed". We are warned time after time after time to be diligent to watch out for false prophets who will bring damnable heresies into the church. I don't think the Christ and the apostles put out that warning because it was an empty threat. They aren't going to come with "heretic" emblazoned on their chests (unless you're that guy from Central America who claims to be Jesus and had folks tattoo 666 on themselves) they are going to come in deceiving, if it were possible, the very elect. We HAVE TO judge. Warren's gospel is becoming for all practical purposes a social gospel. He is giving false assurance to non-believers that they are okay with God and is treating non-believers as if they are believers.(See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyyEIEDqrQ among many examples). The heresy may be subtle sometimes, but it is heresy. It is a perversion of the gospel. It is often a works righteousness. And it isn't biblical.
Chad: Our task is to love God and love our neighbor. IF you should perceive Warren or any of his minions as your enemy than your task is just as clear: pray for them.
Janine: Certainly. It is my prayer that someone with his influence would turn his heart back towards the God of Scripture and denounce much of what is in the PD Franchise. I don't desire harm for him or any of his disciples. I do want them to stop with the perversion of the truth and the destruction of God's church.
Again, when the world sees nothing wrong with you, that should be a red flag. There should be red flags all over the place with Mr. Warren and others of the same mindset.
Posted by: Janine | June 01, 2008 at 11:13 PM
"Back up the the hypocrisy wagon I.E. Who's talking about Chris? I'm referring to those so quick to believe what Warren says."
I was in response to the air of comments about him turning into a PDL fan boy. I thought you were saying I was gullible. But I'm glad I am mistaken, and sorry for the mistake :)
Posted by: Ibanez Eric | June 02, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Interesting here is J Piper's view on "A common word between us & you" The idea of building bridges to other faiths. I think RW signed off on this but I could be wrong, sounds like something that would fit into his global PEACE plan, making all those different faiths and churches a global distribution network. Will it work, for the glory of God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTY-9FY13kw
Have a great night!
Posted by: jeff | June 02, 2008 at 12:40 AM
What Chris wrote here makes me want to shout AMEN! What most of the people write in the comments make me want to shout PLEASE STOP!
Chris is being an example to us all of how we can, with love and humility, disagree with a brother in Christ.
What most of us (yes I include myself) do when we argue our point, is putting ourselves on higher moral ground. The "I now better than you" stance. Jesus warned us against such behaviour in Matthew 7. One of the passages in Nelson Mandela's auto biography that stuck with me is when he told the story of where he tried to convince one of the PAC members that the ANC's way of doing things was the better way. He says that the man listened up to the point where Mandela said something that put himself on higher moral ground. From there on the conversation was fruitless. Jesus came to us as a servant and that is what exalted Him to ruler of all. How can we, calling ourselves His followers, think we can effect change by "preaching" down at people from our own higher moral ground. Let us be servants of one another. When we disagree, let us do it in humility and love and just maybe we'll get people to listen what we have to say.
Chris, may God be with you and guide you while you work on your responce to the PD conference.
Posted by: Eugene Roberts | June 02, 2008 at 06:19 AM
What's stunning to me that some of the most hateful, abusive comments posted on this site are coming from people who tag the title "pastor" to their name. They're full of brotherly love....until someome disagrees with them. Then the "crown of self-righteousness" goes on and the abusive words flow....directed toward the very "brothers and sisters in Christ" they vowed before God to shepherd. It's a very sad thing to see.
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 02, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Bill,
Do you have page references? You bullet pointed several things so I assume you already have quotes by Warren that are easily identifiable. It would be a great help. I have both books here with me but don't recall seeing anything quite the way you color it.
As for the Way of the Master, I was introduced to that several years ago and found it then as well as today to be dreadful. Will Willimon, in his great new book "Who Will Be Saved?" writes (drawing from Barth as well) that "you preach salvation first, joyfully announcing an event by which God has decisively acted in our behalf. Only in the light of that accomplished fact is one able to speak of sin. One knows the seriousness of sin only in the light of the cross." (pg. 127).
Bill, would you not agree that as we come to know Christ more and more we are made all the more aware of just how sinful we are? When I first became a Christian I had no idea what sin really was. A few decades later and now as a pastor I can say that the closer God draws me to him the more I realize my true need of a Savior.
I also disagree with the idea of "false converts." Who decides this? But this is perhaps a whole other topic.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 09:06 AM
Chad- "It sounds like a pastor giving a reporter the practical "how-to" scoop on a mission they recently did"
Jeff: Sounds to me like a pastor robbing God of His due glory & credit. It's a matter of the heart, when a pastor is quoted twice, and he gives himself all the glory, it bears witness that RW thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think...
Chad: Jeff, as long as you acknowledge that this is purely subjective on your part, that it "sounds to me like..." When people want to see the worst in people it is so easy to do. But let us be careful about how we judge someone's heart based on a quote from Forbes magazine. I noticed that you didn't have anything to say about the title of PDL's first chapter: It All Starts With God. Why not praise Warren (as you do Piper) for giving God glory there?
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Chad,
Most of my bullet points come from the purpose driven church. I borrowed the book from the library an don't have it with me right now.
Agree that the more we draw closer to Christ the more we understand sin. With that said, when I read the book of Matthew for the first time when I was a teenager and believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God for the first time, I remembered immediately feeling that I would not go to heaven unless I improved my personal life. The Sermon on the Mount would send me to hell unless God forgave me. Those feelings lasted for years until I trusted in Jesus forgiveness for my sin. The law sends you ultimately to the gospel, because you realize you can't keep it with your best efforts. My point is any unbeliever that reads the sermon on the mount for the first time should be convicted of his sin, if he is a believer in Jesus right away, he may not see the need of a saviour right away (he may have to read John and the epistles where it's more revealed) but he'll be worryng if he goes to hell or not until he finds a saviour or trusts in the saviour. You see I was naive to think that I could repent and keep the commandmens after salvation, still as I was not able to keep them, I worried about hell. This went on until I trusted Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins.
So there can't be no salvation before an admission by the sinner that he's heading to hell.
I'm going to work now and won't be able to check this until tonight.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Bill | June 02, 2008 at 09:46 AM
catran,
"What's stunning to me that some of the most hateful, abusive comments posted on this site are coming from people who tag the title 'pastor' to their name."
1) A true pastor-teacher doesn't "tag" this title, it is given him by Christ. You might want to take a moment and process that before you're so quick to judge.
And 2) Have you per chance ever read Matthew 23?
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 02, 2008 at 10:03 AM
All,
At this point, this an argument no one is going to "win". Even with Chris R's call for gentleness, the participants in this conversation continue devouring one another. We call for fruit to be produced in Rick Warren, but it is evident that no fruit is being produced through these posts at this point. That should tell us something.
One of the most disappointing outcomes of the blogosphere explosion is the way we talk to each other. Hidden behind bits and bytes, we aren't afraid to mock, ridicule, trample, and smear each other. Computers have done much good, but they have also done much to strip us of our humanity...of our imago Dei. Would we speak the same way, with the same bravado and smugness, if we were sharing a meal? It saddens me to read back through these posts and to see the way we treat brothers and sisters in Christ on both sides of the aisle. I can only imagine what a non-Christian or new Christian would think if they ended up here.
There is a difference between challenging someone and holding them accountable, and the vitriol that is spewed (often gleefully) here.
From my perspective, there have been some thoughtful, reasonable, and informed points made on all sides of the discussion. But at this point, no one is hearing anyone any more.
Perhaps it's time to stop casting pearls before swine.
Posted by: Josh | June 02, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Janine: Here is a quote: “Be willing to let people leave the church. And I told you earlier the fact that people are gonna leave the church no matter what you do. But when you define the vision, you’re choosing who leaves. You say, “But Rick, yes, they’re the pillars of the church.” Now, you know what pillars are. Pillars are people who hold things up … And in your church, you may have to have some blessed subtractions before you have any real additions” -Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church.
First, Warren is not talking about lost people, he is talking about people who have sacrificed their lives for the good of that local body of believers. These folks are told in the world "you're too old, or your views are old fashioned" and shoved aside on their secular jobs. Now, they face the same thing in the church and it isn't right.
Second, God isn't weeding folks out in this scenario. Warren says YOU define the vision and YOU are choosing who leaves. That isn't about God at all. It is about wicked man's wicked ideas.
Chad: Janine, this is unfair. First of all, Warren makes no bones about it that the vision must be something prayed about and that you are feeling God leading you into. Everything he is saying here has God’s vision for the church undergirding it. IF what you quote here was without Warren ever testifying to the necessity of God to move and grow the church than you might have something to gripe about. But that is not the case. You don’t like Warren and that is coloring everything you read about him.
Furthermore, Warren is right. There is a problem with many churches today in that the pastors coddle to the “pillars.” Many pastors are scared to death of actually implementing the vision they sense God has given them because they don’t want to lose the handful of people that pay the bills. Thus, it is easier to just coast along and survive than it is to do radical things for God and the Kingdom. Warren is simply giving assurance to those pastors who have a vision (by God’s grace) and yet are scared to move forward. You will lose people. But God will not lose them. They will (hopefully) find a church where they can be discontent. Warren states elsewhere (and I’ll show this later) that this is the hardest thing to do and doesn’t say these things flippantly – like they are nothing. Did you miss the quote I gave of Warren saying DON”T CHANGE A CHURCH just because but make sure you have heard from God! He says that if your church is elderly and is gifted there than grow on what your strength is and become the best elderly ministry in your community. How is that saying, “you’re too old, or your views are old fashioned”? Be honest, Janine. The truth is that in many churches there is a lot of old, bad thinking that needs fresh vision and mission. We are not called to be stagnant and static but to grow and to be LED into truth.
Chad: I doubt that Warren encourages us to rejoice because people are lost. Do you?
Janine: I don't think Warren personally cares that much. He has had numerous audiences with many lost people, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc. His message to them, "You make God smile when you do what He made you to do." These are lost people, Chad. He's basically saying everything is okay with them as long as they do something nice with their lives. Of course, lost is lost and they were no more or less lost because Warren didn't share the gospel with them, but it does make one question whether he cares about their souls. Beware when the world adores you.
Chad: The guy who has given all his income back to the church and is actively engaged in easing the suffering of the world (the “lost”) “doesn’t care that much”? Come on, Janine. I happen to agree with the statement, “You make God smile when you do what He made you to do.” Which part of this do you disagree with? That God actually smiles or that He has made us for a purpose? What I see Warren doing is having dinner with sinners. The same thing Jesus did again and again and was crucified for. He is building bridges and opening lines of further communication and making space for the Holy Spirit to draw ALL people onto Christ who was lifted up. I see him modeling Paul who spoke to the pagan Athenians, praising them for being very religious people. Do you think a sermon by Jonathan Edwards today would speak to a Muslim?
Chad: Janine, EVERY church has a “system” whether they acknowledge it or not.
Janine: Chad, it isn't an excuse. Sound systems are not bad and having a bad one can be a distraction. But, they are tools. They are not the draw. The Word of God is the draw. Unfortunately, in today's environment there is so much emphasis on making church comfortable for the "seeker" that the comforts are seen as the draw and the Word of God, if it is even present, is seen as secondary. We need to get back to the Word. These other things will burn up like everything else one day. God's Word will endure.
Chad: I disagree. Jesus is the draw. The Holy Spirit draws. The cross is the draw. The word of God (scripture) points the way to the one who does the drawing. I often hear my reformed friends talking of scripture as though it were God himself (MacArthur makes this connection in his latest book). This is, of course, debatable. Warren (and I) disagrees. What you are doing is using one “system” (scripture) and claiming it is the better system than an open invitation to ALL (seeker-sensitive); both with the aim to draw people to Christ. When I read the gospels I se Jesus as being very seeker sensitive. He told story after story of having a big feast and just going out and inviting any and all who will come. Drawing them in. Bring them to the banquet. Going to have dinner with sinners and tax collectors. In the end, it is God who moves on people, not us. We need to relearn that and find ways to draw as many into the embrace of the church as we possibly can. We need to relearn what it means to proclaim the Good News to all the nations.
Janine: I am not boxing God up. There are different expressions to worship and different ways of "doing church." However, I do believe that ALL ways must adhere to the examples given in the Word of God. If the Word of God is watered down, taken out of context, or otherwise downplayed, there is a problem. If there is a lack of reverence for the Lord, there is a problem. If some people are expendable, there is a problem. I believe these are general principles that can fit into many different molds of church, and I believe they are biblical.
Chad: I have asked countless people on this thread and others to give examples of how Warren “waters down” or “downplays” scripture. What ends up happening is people give an example or two and offer Warren’s use of that scripture. The next move is that someone points out how that can be taken a number of ways, and that Warren’s way is not necessarily wrong nor is it “watered down.” The critic at this point, rather than prove that it is indeed watered down, moves onto something else.
What I am becoming convinced of is this: There is no such thing as “watering down” scripture. As Jesus tells his followers who wish to rebuke those that are not “like us” in Mark 9, you are either for us or against us. You are either proclaiming the Kingdom of God or you are not. So I think instead of making very subjective charges like “he waters down” scripture it would be better if you simply said he is blatantly wrong in his interpretations of scripture, like Marcion.
If we are not willing to say that Warren is Marcion, then let us profess with Paul,
“Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.” Phil. 1:15-18
I’ll pause here as this is far longer than I anticipated.
Peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Janine,
This was meant to be at the top of my last post:
Janine, I am tyring to show the same care in responding to your well-thought out post as you showed to me. I will get to the rest of your post when I have some more time. I didn't want you to think I had overlooked it. By God's grace perhpas we can both come to a richer, fuller understanding of how God is working thorugh means that often time astound, boggle and blow our minds. Indeed, I find it remarkable that God would stoop so low to save a guy like me. I find it just as remarkable that God would choose to work in ways that baffle me.
grace and peace to you.
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Josh and Eugene,
Both your comments are greatly appreciated and I hope well received. Thank you for being a voice of reason and wisdom in a sea of what is at times chaotic. I am sorry for where I have added fuel to the fire.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Thanks Chris, as usual you have given me much to think about.
-P
Posted by: PaulC | June 02, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Chris - Well said. Though I am completely on-board with the criticisms of the seeker movement, my own sin in this area often bothers me. It's a blessing to hear you express this and repent of it. May we all follow your example in light of the gospel.
Posted by: Mark | June 02, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Ken, your postings only confirm one thing: That you are one very angry man.
A "true" pastor would never address people in the condescending, self-aggrandizing manner you use in your posts. I wonder if you would be so quick to blast people were you to meet them face to face. It's real easy to launch verbal assault rockets from behind the safety of a computer screen. Go on ahead and attack me for saying this, but it's the plain, tragic truth. Your tone speaks volumes about your character.
Have you, who are so quick to quote Scripture, ever read what James says about the tongue???
Posted by: catransplant48 | June 02, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I have now discovered that in the original Greek "respect and gentleness" should be translated "compromise".
Who knew?
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 02, 2008 at 12:48 PM
--Why was Jesus crucified, Ken? Was it not because the "Church" ç?--
Did I miss something? Such as, the fact that the church wasn't yet founded when Jesus was crucified, and so could not have "viewed his table manners as completely scandalous and contrary to anything the Messiah would suppossedly do"?
Or is this a new tactic, blaming the church now for even the crucifixion? Well, since the church seems to be to blame for everything else wrong, guess it was only a matter of time.
Posted by: jazzact13 | June 02, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Jazzact,
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I put "Church" in quotations? It was the "church" of Jesus' day - the Temple system and the ruling religious elites (the Pharisees). It was they (the "church people) who viewed Jesus as scandalous to everything they thought the Messiah would be and do. Do you disagree?
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Sorry, messed up that post a bit. Here it is corrected
--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?--
Did I miss something? Such as, the fact that the church wasn't yet founded when Jesus was crucified, and so could not have "viewed his table manners as completely scandalous and contrary to anything the Messiah would suppossedly do"?
Or is this a new tactic, blaming the church now for even the crucifixion? Well, since the church seems to be to blame for everything else wrong, guess it was only a matter of time.
Posted by: jazzact13 | June 02, 2008 at 01:07 PM
cattran,
I'm not angry but the Spirit within me is. You opine: "I wonder if you would be so quick to blast people were you to meet them face to face."
This only proves you do not know me. And you whine: "It's real easy to launch verbal assault rockets from behind the safety of a computer screen." So, is this why you do so?
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 02, 2008 at 01:10 PM
--Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I put "Church" in quotations? --
Nope.
--It was the "church" of Jesus' day - the Temple system and the ruling religious elites (the Pharisees).--
Now, upon what basis am I to assume that the religious leaders and system of Jesus' day are to be equated with the Church? Even if you wish to point to some similarities, that does not make them the same thing.
--It was they (the "church people) who viewed Jesus as scandalous to everything they thought the Messiah would be and do.--
Which is even more telling, equating the Pharisees and such with "church people". But I find that a leap in logic without support, designed more to label and belittle then to accurately define.
Posted by: jazzact13 | June 02, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Jazzact -
Do you have a point you are trying to make? Forgive me, but it sounds like you are talking in circles.
I never said they were the same thing. You are claiming it as such and then arguing against something I never said. The point is a simple one: Ken is claiming Warren violates 2 Cor. 6:14ff. My question to him (which he never answered) is more or less why he does not claim Christ is a violator as well? The "church" (the religous people of his day) were saying the same things of Jesus as Ken is saying of Warren - i.e. HE EATS WITH SINNERS! They were scandalized by such behavior, as Ken seems to be now.
Sorry if that wasn't as clear in my initial post.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 01:44 PM
--Do you have a point you are trying to make?--
Wait for it.
--I never said they were the same thing.--
Yet you used such words as "church" and "church people" in regards to the people who crucified Christ and viewed his actions as scandalous.
Am I to assume that the use of such language was accidental, or that you had a reason for it? Do you have a point that you are trying to make?
Posted by: jazzact13 | June 02, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Jazzact,
I'm sorry, but I can't be any more clear than I was in the above post.
Sorry for being so confusing.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2008 at 02:00 PM