This post will serve as the prelude to my critique of what was taught by Rick Warren at the Purpose-Driven Community Conference.
Before I launch into my critique I would like to lay out a few of the presuppositions I am operating from.
1. Testing what a pastor or teacher preaches or teaches against the word of God is Biblically mandated.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.1 Thess 5:21 test everything; hold fast what is good.
In fact, even the Apostle Paul, a man who received his doctrines directly from Jesus Christ had the content of his messages tested against the word of God by the Bereans. And the Bereans were said to be of a more noble character than the Thessalonians precisely because they scrutinzed what Paul said against the scriptures.
Acts 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Therefore, Rick Warren is not immune from having his messages and teaching tested against the scriptures to determine whether or not they square with the Word of God.
Therefore, those who test Rick Warren’s teaching against the word of God are following the clear instructions of scripture and are engaging in a noble work.
Therefore, those who test Rick Warren’s teaching against the word of God are not being divisive. Instead, they are being obedient. In fact, those who discover that a teacher is teaching false doctrine and warn the church of that false doctrine and false teacher are not the ones sowing division in the Christian Church. Instead, the ones sowing division in the Church ARE the people who are teaching the false doctrine, not the ones exposing them.
2. Unity with a false teacher is only possible if the false teacher repents of his false doctrine.
3. A published doctrinal statement is NOT definitive proof in deciding whether or not a pastor or teacher is teaching true or false doctrine. As a Lutheran I can point to many Lutheran pastors who claim to subscribe to the confessions of the Lutheran faith as found in the Book of Concord YET these pastors deny and teach against the inerrancy of scripture, argue for the ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Despite their passionate claims to be in agreement with the Lutheran confessions the evidence proves the contrary.
Therefore, what a pastor publicly preaches and teaches MUST ALWAYS be compared with any and all published doctrinal statements to determine whether or not the pastor is adhering to that doctrinal statement. This includes Rick Warren.
4. Calling a false doctrine what it is and calling a false teacher or pastor to repentance IS NOT unloving nor is it incompatible with the Gospel nor does it contradict the clear call in scripture for our Christian apologetics to be done with ‘gentleness and respect’. Jesus, who is God in human flesh and one who has never sinned called people to repentance and faith. Therefore, calling people to repentance whether for behavioral sins or doctrinal errors is one of the most loving good works that a Christian can perform in service to his neighbor.
5. Lastly, everything I post as a critique against Rick Warren or any other teacher MUST be tested against the scriptures. If I am in error, then I pray that you would love me enough to point out my errors and call me to repentance.
Brett S,
Let me try to answer your questions.
1. Where does the bible mention "cardinal doctrines"?
2. Where does the bible clearly teach which "doctrines are not negotiable while others are debatable"?
3. If you are a Lutheran, couldn't you save yourself a lot of time (and maybe headaches) proving that Pastor Warren (and every other SBC pastor)teaches false doctrine simply by teaching [as the Baptist Faith and Message says: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."]?
Stay Tuned.
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | June 03, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Rick F,
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not believe that Modalism is within Orthodoxy.
I passionately confess and maintain the tenants of the Athansian Creed
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | June 03, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Rick,
How is "1 person in three manifestations" ok? Isn't this modulism, which was condemned as a heresy in the third century?
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 03, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Jason wrote: Richard, based on what you've written, you and I have different definitions of "ministry philosophy" and since the context of our conversation is Chris's blog, I'm going to wait for more from him, rather than doing anything else to muddy the waters. I firmly believe clarity is key to any discussion, especially nuanced ones, and most especially heated nuanced ones. This has already gone further with less fuel than it should have.
Thanks for being a level-headed voice on a blog that seems to be increasingly filled with unnecessary sarcasm and wit in poor taste from both sides of the aisle.
(BTW, a general hint for keeping these things from getting too heated, or at least trying to keep the brush fires to a minimum... If it's only going to be funny to you or to your friends, it's not going to help the discussion. Keep the joke to yourself.)
Posted by: Heidi Sue | June 03, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Chris, you said: The concept of a Cardinal Doctrine is Biblical however. The idea is guarding those doctrines whereby if a person does not hold to them they are instead worshiping an idol or believing 'another gospel'.
It seems to me that thing guarded by the early Christians was one thing: the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on a reading of the NT alone one might argue that everything else is "debatable" apart from that.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 01:20 PM
OK, Chris. I passionately confess and maintain the tenants of the Frueh Creed. It takes all that is correct from all creeds and compiles them into one colossal creed of truth. :)
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 01:21 PM
I reread the initial post by Chris and in presup #4 he states: Therefore, calling people to repentance whether for behavioral sins or doctrinal errors is one of the most loving good works that a Christian can perform in service to his neighbor.
Really? I would think the most loving thing a person could do for his or her neighbor would be to give them a cup of water, a plate of food, a shelter over their head, a warm coat, or pick them up off the side of the road when they are helpless. I think Jesus would have said the same and I think Warren is saying the same.
It is a tragedy that we Gentile Christians have forgotten what it is like to be on the "outside." We, who have been shown much grace and grafted into the wide embrace of God are horrific at showing this same embrace to our neighbors. Do we not realize that Gentiles are EVERYONE who is not a Jew? This means that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans of every stripe, yes, even Catholics (oh my!) are our brothers and sisters - we are ALL Gentiles, and they are all our neighbors.
I applaud Warren for joining hands with our fellow Gentiles in the cause of bringing peace, justice and mercy to a world that is hurting. The real miracle in this, perhaps, is that these other faiths would see fit to join us Christians! After all we have done to them and how poorly we have treated them in the past it is a wonder they want anything to do with us. Praise God He is moving despite ourselves.
What we as a Church REALLY should be doing is praying for these efforts that real people might find a hand to give them food so that they might hear the message of love over the growling of their stomachs. We should be praying that as we LIVE the gospel, our words will be unneccesary as the whole world sees what can be done in the name of unity and peace and love - ALL which are CARDINAL VIRTUES that our Lord taught. What a shame that we use our time instead to nit-pick and belittle others as a way of forgetting that we were at one time the outcasts. By God's grace he has reached out to ALL nations, and not for anything we have done to be deemed worthy, lest any of us should boast.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Dear Ken,
Take a moment please and consider my thoughts...
_______________
KS: If this is the case then you should have no problem when others of us who are also apologists are "analyzing" Rick Warren because as you so eloquently stated above "Warren is just another public religious figure."
RA: I have never had an issue with people critiquing or criticizing Rick Warren. NEVER! Critiquing Warren is absolutely fine with me.
What I do have a problem with (and what you should have a problem with, too) is misrepresenting Warren, lying about Warren (as well as lying about me, BTW), and fashioning a misrepresentation of Warren, his beliefs, ministry, church, and even PEACE PLAN.
_________________
KS: I say, have at it with your analyzing Rick Warren's teachings as now you even have the blessing of Richard Abanes.
RA: Chris has ALWAYS had that. You are created yet another scenario and false representation of me. Chris knows full well, from me personally, that I am perfectly fine with him offering his observations about Warren as long as they are offered lovingly, gently, with respect, in a Christ-like fashion, and accurately.
_________
And now, Ken, it is your turn to answer me. And I do ask for some straightforward answers. I have now publicly made you aware of the fact, in no uncertain terms, that I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN. You are now left with two choices.
1. Call me a liar -- and continue asserting that I am indeed a person who speaks for Rick Warren, contrary to my public statements here. If you choose that course, then please provide proof of your assertion (e.g., an email from Warren/Saddleback requesting that I speak for him publicly, or represent his positions; or a pay stub from Saddleback to me for services I haev rendered by publicly speaking for Warren; etc etc etc.)/
2. Accept my words as truth, admit your eror, and publicly retract the comments you've made in your latest missive "RICK WARREN AND A “BALANCED” REVERSAL OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION." wherein you state: "Richard Abanes Speaks For Rick Warren And Clarifies His Position" and "Since Abanes is now speaking for Rick Warren." At the very least, you will need to re-write that article with those comments removed. And I would hope that if you see any similar comments appearing elsewhere by others, you would be willing to correct their error.
So, which is it?
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Richard - even though you are not on the payroll you do ardently defend most of his positions. So what? One can say you speak for him in a way of defending him and there is nothing wrong with that. Ask some about Calvin and some will have no difficulty speaking for him and his positions, so if you who know RW and believe you know where he stands feel like defending him go ahead.
I have never understood your aversion to be labeled as a Warren "apologist". Every poster and commentor here defends the positions of people they espouse, including dead ones. The word "Lutheran" and "Calvinist" themselves are descriptive of defending certain views attributed tocertain people.
So defend away and let others including me disagree with you. BTW - you and Rick Warren have never been photographed together. Hmm...
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 02:01 PM
TO GAYLE: PART 1
GAYLE: ......[PEACE PLAN issues]
Gayle,
It seems that you and so many others do not at all understand the PEACE PLAN, but are characterizing it as some bizarre Social Gospel only. Why? One reason I have often seen mentions is the rather superficial charge that it doesn't include an "E" for evangelism. I ask that you please take a moment to consider what are absolute facts -- and NOT opinions, speculations, or heated gossip.
The entire PEACE plan is an EVANGELISM STRATEGY. The reason WHY Warren is going after his GLOBAL GIANTS is not only to relieve human suffering, but more importantly to REMOVE those things that he sees hindering the spread of the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL throughout the world. I have said this over and over and over -- so forgive me if I am a bit exasperated and more than a little frustrated.
The P.E.A.C.E. PLAN is intended to remove those things that are hindering the spread of the Christian Gospel throughout the world. For example, if you seek to end illiteracy - suddenly how many millions of people can read a Bible? If you try to alleviate poverty, it enables people to look to other issues in their lives besides just worrying about how they’re going to survive through the next 24 hours.
This is all in BLACK & WHITE in the PEACE plan, but no critics are bothering to quote those parts of it. All they keep doing is talking about how “E” for evangelism is not in the plan. Why haven't you ever seen any of these quotes listed by Warren’s critics:
1. These are the world’s biggest problems, affecting billions, not just millions, of people: spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy. These five global giants ravage the lives of billions of people worldwide and all work together to constrain them and cut them off from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins allowing them eternal hope and security” (P.E.A.C.E.).
PLEASE READ AGAIN - “cut them off from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins”
2. “These giants [spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy] work together to constrain and prevent masses of people from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins allowing us eternal hope and security. . . . The only successful solution is the global Church of Jesus Christ.” (PEACE PLAN SUMMARY)
PLEASE READ AGAIN - “work together to constrain and prevent masses of people from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins allowing us eternal hope and security”
Far from being a Social Gospel, the PEACE PLAN in total is an evangelism strategy. The only real question is: Are we as Christians permitted to work with unbelievers in our attempts to: a) alleviate pain and human suffering; and b) gain access to places where we can spread the Gospel. I see NOTHING in the Bible that would prohibit either.
"Ah," you might say, "but what about 2 Cor. 6:14-15? Surely, this passage is a directive against joining unbelievers and those of other religions for social outreach as expressed through the PEACE PLAN!"
My answer is: No -- 2 Cor. 6:14-15 does not speak against what is happening in the PEACE PLAN. My views on this important passage of scripture will follow............in part 2.
R. abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 02:03 PM
RICK: I have never understood your aversion to be labeled as a Warren "apologist". Every poster and commentor here defends the positions of people they espouse, including dead ones. The word "Lutheran" and "Calvinist" themselves are descriptive of defending certain views attributed to certain people.
RA: I am REALLY glad you brought this up. And I am MOST happy to answer. The way YOU might mean such a phrase or ascription is NOT the way people like Ken Silva and others mean it.
They use it as a slur against my faith in Christ, my professional standing as defender of the faith, and my allegiance to God/scripture/Gospel. It is their way of asserting that I do NOT defend the faith, but rather I defend a man -- i.e., Rick Warren. THAT is why it is a label that cannot be allowed.
To illustrate, I give you this quote from Tim Wirth, whose attempts to tarnish my personal character, Christian faith, and standing in the apologetic community are unending. He alleges that I am part of a new kind of apologist who DOES NOT defend the faith, but defends a new/false kind of Christianity.
This is a very serious charge that places me out of the faith and out of God's household. Wirth declares: "Consider now the new wave of apologetics where you don’t defend the Christian faith, but defend the faith of others by spinning the Christian faith."
As he has further stated: "I have no common ground with Richard Abanes or do I desire to dialog with him. He is a member of Saddleback and a follower of Rick Warren [as opposed to a follower of Jesus Christ]. Sorry we don’t have anything in common to chat about."
In the plainest of terms, Wirth says: "Now Richard may dispute his being a follower of Rick Warren (of course Abanes will state he is a follower of Jesus Christ) but Richards actions of defending Warren all over the internet primarily instead of the Christian faith shows Richards true intentions. Note what I just said. Abanes defends Rick Warrens faith instead of the Christian faith. This I believe shows Richards true colors."
This is how the label is being defined/used by people like Wirth, Silva, and others. And THAT is why I will not tolerate its application to me.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Thanks for the reply, and the clear answers. Those are pretty much the same conclusions I come to on those questions.
"Debatable doctrines" still troubles me though.
-How is an average Christian like myself suppose to pick up a bible and figure out which truths are debatable vs. non-debatable?
-If a doctrine is false, is it any less false because it is a "debatable doctrine"?
Posted by: Brett S | June 03, 2008 at 02:24 PM
NOTES ON SECOND CORINTHIANS 6:14-15
____________BEGIN
Second Corinthians 6:14-15 is one of the most abused and misused verses in the Bible. It is often cited in order to condemn the enjoyment of secular friends, dating unbelievers, celebrating Christmas/Easter, working for social betterment with non-Christians, and even continuing to have contact with a family member who hasn't accepted Christ.
The follow up verse (2 Cor. 6:17-18) has been abused in much the same way, and worse, often being used by cults/aberrant groups to not live within society (e.g., isolationist sects like the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones cult, and others), or not dress in colors/use modern machinery (e.g. the Amish). Both of these passages, however, have a far more plausible interpretation that is much less intolerant and isolationistic.
In context, per the Eerdman's Commentary, the main thrust of Paul's warning is to keep clear of worldly attachments—i.e, getting bound up in a way that would divert us from a spiritual, fruitful, doctrinally sound walk with Christ. According to the Eerdman's Commentary, Paul is apparently making a sharp reference to some incident/topic present at the Corinth church, undefined to us, but apparently understood by them:
"In this passage, Paul prohibits some particular though unspecified relationship with unbelievers (v. 14). The veto somehow concerns heathen sacrifices; and certainly any association with heathen worship [in Corinth] involved immorality of the worst kind'" (Eerdman's, p. 1081).
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries adds to this thought by explaining: "One of the great problems of the Christians in a pagan city such as Corinth was to know how far they ought to segregate themselves from those who were outside their fellowship. In the first Epistle the apostle had advised them on the subject, and advocated that , while every care must be taken to avoid idolatry, complete separation was unnecessary" (p. 98). We then read the Tyndale conclusion, which speaks of the contents of v. 17-18:
"Paul continues what is, in effect, a chain of Old Testament quotations, but inserts the word 'wherefore' to show that he is now drawing practical implications from the great truth that the Christians are the temple of the living God. The older shrines were separated off from the world around them; so the Christians must be SPIRITUALLY and MORALLY withdrawn from the pagan society in which they have to live" (p. 99).
Notice—NOT SOCIAL. This is not a social issue. Consequently, when it comes to Warren and his P.E.A.C.E. Plan, neither of these passages would apply.
On a personal level, I cannot understand an unwillingness on the part of Christians to work with those of differing beliefs (or no beliefs at all) in order to help alleviate suffering in the world. In a recent blog, I addressed this very issue when responding to a Christian who felt that it was improper/unbiblical to work with non-Christians in the social arena. Consider my following comments, originally posted at simplemindedpreacher:
Are you telling me that on 9/11 if you were in NYC, you would NOT have helped survivors of the terrorist attacks if your search/rescue team was being coordinated by a Buddhist? Or that you would NOT pull debris off an area where there might have been survivors if your team consisted of 3 atheists, a Hindu, and 4 Jews (a very possible mix in New York)? What about Katrina in New Orleans? You would NOT have gotten in a boat to rescue stranded people unless your whole boat was full of Christians? What if you found out that one of those "Christians" was a liberal from a United Methodist Church in New Orleans? Would you turn the boat while people were drowning?
I remind you that we are to be in the world, but not of it (John 17:14-15). And also, in Romans 10:15, Paul declares, "And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!" I am thrilled that ambassadors of Christ will be walking on those beautiful feet in all parts of the world thanks to the P.E.A.C.E. Plan. Nothing the Bible forbids us from helping out in the world socially with people who do not happen to be Christian.
If you or anyone else does not want to help alleviate the suffering in the world unless you're working with other Christians, then fine. That is your choice. But please, allow others who feel differently to respond in good conscience to James 1:27 and James 2:14-17 without fear of being labeled a compromiser, a New Ager, a pluralist, a false teacher, a deceiver, and all manner of other hurtful names.
A Christian, if they are mature in the Lord, should certainly be able to remain spiritually and morally separated from others (no matter what their religions might be), if they are:
- working with them SOCIALLY to build an orphanage,
- helping SOCIALLY to feed a starving child, or
- passing out clothes SOCIALLY to people who are wearing rags.
In fact, such scenes would be a golden opportunities to share Jesus with all kinds of persons.
Some Christians, of course, as we know, feel that such an encounter/interaction is wrong, believing that Christians should only work with other Christians in the social realm. But, as we can see, working ONLY with Christians is not mandated by scripture. It must be viewed, therefore, as more of a personal preference matter.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Acts of humanitarian kindness can be used of the Spirit to break up spiritually fallow ground in people's hearts. The Good Samaritan comes to mind. They do not save, only the gospel can save, however a full stomach is sometimes inclined to listen better than an empty one.
We Americans have no comparison with which to judge, we only have full, fuller, and most full stomachs.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Amen, RA.
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Rick, slide in to that "amen" above.
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Chad,
The Church is not a social service agency. The Church is first called to proclaim the Gospel, which includes the repentance of sin. In Acts, the Apostles selected deacons to wait on tables so that they could focus on primary function of the Church.
Yes, the Church and Christians are to provide care for our neighbors but that is secondary to proclamation of the Gospel.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 03, 2008 at 02:46 PM
JASON: Richard, based on what you've written, you and I have different definitions of "ministry philosophy" and since the context of our conversation is Chris's blog, I'm going to wait for more from him
RA: I understand. Agreed. But i do want to say that I am under the impression that actually we might not be as different as you think. Remember, I am not saying that I PERSONALLY subscribe to every aspect of Warren's ministry philosophy. And the fact is, I don't -- surprise, surprise. My whole role in this difficult issue is how we do apologetics/discernment far more than just defending Warren. He, in my view, is NOTHING but a catalyst to show the proper way to do apologetics vs. the improper way to do apologetics. For the record, I do NOT agree with every aspect of Rick Warren's ministry philosophy. There. :-)
________________
INGRID: It's often our "respected, well-established, professional apologists" who are contributing to the problems in the church. People listen to them instead of consulting their own Bibles. As Luther once put it, the humblest Christian, armed with a sound knowledge of the Scriptures, is no match for the most erudite apostate scholar. And, I would add, is less likely to be afflicted with pride.
RA: Ingrid. Names please of "respected, well-established, professional apologists" who are contributing to the problems in the church. Give me names. I would be very open to hearing them. And, in my opinion, if I can be honest, people are also listening to YOU without consulting their Bibles. And THAT is a terrible problem that has been causing division, strife, anger, hurt, frustration, and fear. I would urge ALL OF US to consult our Bibles, as well as pay careful attention to factual detail, and not go about seeking to do apologetics/discernment with any agenda to hang someone or find a target to attack. That is what I am asking for - nothing more.
____________
CHRIS: Assorted posts.
RA: TY for the clarifications. And I very much appreciated your post regarding Cardinal Doctrines. Very well stated. I call them essentials, but they are the same thing, I believe. Maybe Lutherans call them "Cardinal" and ex-CRI, soft Calvinist, pseudo-Southern Baptists call them "Essentials." LoL.
______________
CHRIS: I do not believe that Modalism is within Orthodoxy.
RA: Chris, you and I agree on this one down the line. Rick F., I love you man, I really do, and you make me laugh. But Modalism is outside the pale of orthodoxy, and long a go was rightly labeled heretical. :-( Sorry.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Steve: Yes, the Church and Christians are to provide care for our neighbors but that is secondary to proclamation of the Gospel.
Chad: Care of our neighbors IS proclamation of the Gospel, Steve. The two cannot be divided.
You are right about one thing: The Church is not a social service agency. But Steve, it used to be. The most distinguishing feature of the church in its infancy was that they loved and helped everyone, regardless of creed or race during times of famine and disease. It caught the attention of Roman emperors, even. Today, the Church is impotent in this regard. When world leaders see humanitarian efforts being done they do not first think it must be Christians but Sears or Microsoft or Angelina Jolie.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 02:51 PM
"which includes the repentance of sin."
Metanoia - change of mind which is inherent in "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". No one has to give up any sins to be saved. That process begins upon conversion, not as a prerequisite.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Chad,
What is the Gospel? It appears that your understanding is not the same as mind?
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 03, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Steve: Chad, what is the Gospel?
Chad: That's a BIG question, Steve. At the risk of being far to brief, the Gospel certainly includes proclamation of the news that Jesus Christ is Lord and has defeated sin and death for the entire world and is even now reconciling ALL things unto himself. You may not know it yet, but Jesus died to set the captives free. That includes you, me, my neighbor. It includes all teh world. You ARE saved, therefore, REPENT and turn from a life that is a lie to a life that is in God, your Creator, the author of everything.
We have been saved, we are even now being saved and we will one day be saved.
Now, with that said, how we proclaim that Good News can take different forms. From very early on in the life of the church the best way to proclaim that news was to get busy caring about the things God cares about: poverty, disease, death, oppression, orphans, widows, the marginalized, the down-trodden, homelessness, hunger, to name a few. We proclaim the gospel when we come along side our brother and say in word and deed that this (insert any of the above afflictions) does not have the last word - that God has given a resounding "NO!" to that which destroys and given a resounding "YES!" to life.
That's a paraphrase. So is it different from what you think?
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 03:20 PM
RA: Accept my words as truth, admit your eror, and publicly retract the comments you've made in your latest missive "RICK WARREN AND A “BALANCED” REVERSAL OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION." wherein you state: "Richard Abanes Speaks For Rick Warren And Clarifies His Position" and "Since Abanes is now speaking for Rick Warren."
KS: With all due respect you are in no position to order me to admit any alleged "error," and particularly when I made no such error. Suggestion: If you don't like being quoted you could always be quiet. But you know, as hard as it might be to believe, you are actually the one who misread those sentences.
So to use your tactic; let's examine what I said. "Richard Abanes Speaks For Rick Warren And Clarifies His Position". Well Richard, you did speak for Warren in the sense of sharing what you understand him to believe. I didn't say here that you spoke for him authoritatively, though there are many who would assume so with the frequency with which you defend him by assuring us that you know what he believes.
And let's look closely at who is the subject of that particular sentence. Hint: That'd be you. The "and" is a conjunction, so the sentence also means "Richard Abanes clarifies his position," which you did when you included yourself in the evangelicals who have the wrong view of Rome I was discussing.
Now let's look at the second sentence you quoted: "Since Abanes is now speaking for Rick Warren." As in, since Richard Abanes is now (remember you were away for a while) speaking for Rick Warren (again I didn't say authoritatively). So because I take your words as factual I then said, "we have further confirmation that Warren stands by what I have already showed you he has said concerning the Roman Catholic Church..."
RA: So, which is it?
KS: Now you know. And I would think this would have made you happy. I used you as a primary source because I assumed you are accurate. No calling anybody a liar there Richard, sorry.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 03:25 PM
And you, Ken, are completely full of crap.
Posted by: aaron | June 03, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Richard Abanes,
I don’t know you brother and I don’t have a dog in this fight (whatever “the fight” is about). I have read your comments on a few sites and essentially agree with your sentiments in pointing out some hypocrisies and inconsistencies.
If you don’t mind a little loving correction yourself; GIVE IT A REST MAN! I think you have made your point. One lesson I’ve had a hard time learning is sometimes you just gotta let the Lord work in people’s hearts. It’s important to be honest with God whether we’re praying for the conversion of another according to His will, or we’re really asking Him to work how and when we want Him to. I like the way a wise old bible scholar once put it:
“For the Lord is gracious and merciful and prefers the conversion of a sinner rather than his death. Patient and generous in his mercy, he does not give in to human impatience but is willing to wait a long time for our repentance.” [Saint Jerome 347 – 420 ad]
Posted by: Brett S | June 03, 2008 at 03:41 PM
aaron,
"And you, Ken, are completely full of crap."
Naughty boy. Looks like you still need to learn more about listening.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Brett S - Amen and amen!
There's more than a few on this blog site that would do well to just take a break. At this point, there's nothing more that can be said that will do any convincing for either of the extreme sides.
Posted by: Josh | June 03, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Ken Silva said: "Looks like you still need to learn more about listening."
That's rather humorous, Ken, coming from you.
By the way, Chris R., what's the deal over at A Little Leaven? Are you planning to update the comments over there? Or has all of this made it impossible to also do that?
Posted by: Plankman | June 03, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Chad,
"What is the Gospel?" might be a big question, but it has a pretty easy answer. You need a savior from sin, and Jesus is that Savior.
All the other stuff, the social aspects and such, while they might be helpful in breaking down barriers, is not the capital-G Gospel, capital-G Good News. Food is good news for the hungry; medicine is good news for the sick. However, what saves someone from eternal damnation is not food or medicine; it is only Jesus Christ crucified. People are saved through faith, and how can they believe unless they hear?
I'm sure you probably were talking about Jesus' death and resurrection when you said that "God has given a resounding 'NO!' to that which destroys and given a resounding 'YES!' to life," but since that statement can easily be construed as life vs. destruction on earth, we must be very clear that we are proclaiming specifically Christ crucified for sinners. Simply walking alongside someone in their struggles without mentioning Jesus as our Savior is certainly helpful, salutary, and great for serving our neighbor, but should never be confused with actual evangelism. A means to an end, possibly, but not the goal itself.
Again, I'm guessing that's probably where you were going with things, but I'm discovering the more folks I talk with who have more different worldviews as their starting points, the more explicit you have to be.
God's peace,
HS
Posted by: Heidi Sue | June 03, 2008 at 03:54 PM
If you will allow me I want to be a voice out of Africa.
I live in South Africa which is without doubt social-economically much better off than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. In spite of this it will take me less than a two minute drive to poverty that you will not find the like of in the USA. You'll find child families with the eldest 15 or 16 years old caring for the younger ones because the parent died of HIV/AIDS. Try to imagine this! These children just fight to survive another day. Daily I drive past hundreds of men standing next to the road looking for a job for the day that will pay them no more than R80 (about $10). That is only just enough to buy food for a family of four for one day.
Now put yourself in these people's shoes. You're main concern (almost only concern) is for you and your family to survive. Now a man walks up to you and tries to tell you about a loving God that sent His Son to die so that you may have eternal life. At that moment you are so hungry that you are longing just for food that will support your earthly life, you are not thinking of eternity here! No matter how good that person's theology, doctrine and communication of the Gospel is, if he cannot offer you what you so desperately need at that very moment, you will not listen to him. I am not talking about the need for self actualisation or some kind of luxury here; I am talking about BASIC needs. These people battle to survive EVERY day.
Now, consider what Rick Warren attempts to do as Richard puts it "The P.E.A.C.E. PLAN is intended to remove those things that are hindering the spread of the Christian Gospel throughout the world." With this in mind I want to say to Steve Newell and other holding this view of "Yes, the Church and Christians are to provide care for our neighbours but that is secondary to proclamation of the Gospel.", the Gospel and social care for these people goes hand in hand and sometimes you will have to give the social care first before you will have an audience willing to listen to the Gospel.
While you are debating Rick Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan, people over here are already living in hell, so please, please, please pray for Rick Warren and P.E.A.C.E. and other similar programs so that we may be able to spread the Gospel without these hindrances in Africa.
Sorry if I get carried away on this subject, but I face this reality every day.
James 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
The New King James Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1998, c1982.
Posted by: Eugene Roberts | June 03, 2008 at 03:55 PM
I dropped by to see what Chris Rosebrough was saying.
When did ET pick up Richard and Chad as co-contributors? I tell ya...a guy steps away for a couple of days and the whole place goes to heck in a handcart...what a minute- I think I read on another thread that there was no "heck." I'm so confused.
Posted by: Keith | June 03, 2008 at 04:03 PM
I dropped by to see what Chris Rosebrough was saying.
When did ET pick up Richard and Chad as co-contributors? I tell ya...a guy steps away for a couple of days and the whole place goes to heck in a handcart...what a minute- I think I read on another thread that there was no "heck." I'm so confused.
Posted by: Keith | June 03, 2008 at 04:03 PM
The AIDs epidemic in Africa is greatest gospel opportunity in the history of post resurrection civilization. Many countries would allow streams of missionaries to attend to these AIDs victims and the orphan crisis without restricting any mention of the gospel. And yet the doctrinally overweight American church continues to store up treasures in 401ks in order to splurge later on themselves. The churches have plunged themselves into sinful debt to build bigger barns, and most of the church is in debt personally and lives way over what they could live on and share the rest.
And against that huge indictment, we feel oh so comfortable criticizing Rick and Kay Warrens' AIDs initiative because we see an unbalance in preaching. I do not know that is true, however, let thsoe who criticize show us and Rick Warren how it is done. You see, it is so easy to find fault but if you were a mother in Africa whose children were saved from starvation you would be not nearly inclined to criticize.
I challenge all you who criticize, ask Rick Warren if you can move to Africa and live near his humanitarian efforts and preach the gospel along side them. You fill the gospel void you say exists. Until then, the critical spirit about helping dying people just reveals a nastiness that finds words much easier to master than actions.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 04:08 PM
"Simply walking alongside someone in their struggles without mentioning Jesus as our Savior is certainly helpful, salutary, and great for serving our neighbor, but should never be confused with actual evangelism."
This is my problem with your statement, Heidi Sue (and I know a lot of others share your opinion):
Why are the two mutually exclusive? I hear, from many, that the "emergents" or Rick Warren or whoever are too concerned with caring for the orphan and the widow, the hungry and the diseased, the marginalized and the oppressed, rather than preaching Christ crucified and forgiveness from sins. But I don't see why both can't happen.
Why can't someone, Heidi Sue, walk alongside someone in their struggles and talk with them about Christ? Isn't that loving? And what if the person rejects Christ? Are we to then ignore that person? Who does the saving, Heidi Sue? Is it man? Or is it the Holy Spirit working in the person? Isn't it God drawing that person to him?
I think that we narrow "evangelism" when we say that it must be only about preaching doctrine and theology to someone. The gospel is good news to all parts of our lives. It is God restoring all of creation, seeing the Kingdome of God break out all around us, and God drawing all things back to himself. God is the one that does the saving work, not us. There is no combination of deeds, creeds, or words that WE can say that will save someone. We do not do the saving! God does it. Therefore, I find it humorous when we talk about the "proper" way to evangelize...as if we have the power to change someone rather than God.
Posted by: Sandusky | June 03, 2008 at 04:08 PM
KS: With all due respect you are in no position to order me to admit any alleged "error," and particularly when I made no such error.
RA: So, do I -- or do I NOT -- speak for Rick Warren.
Ken, I have publicly corrected you by telling everyone that I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN. You say, I do. Either prove it with evidence, or retract your false statement and apologize.
I'm unsure as to what the problem here is, Ken. If I said you are President's Bush's personal advisor and chaplain, or said that you spoke for the president of the SBC, then you told me publicly you do not fill any such role -- I would simply say, "Oops, sorry, my mistake. Let me correct that."
What's the problem?
___________
KS: If you don't like being quoted you could always be quiet. But you know, as hard as it might be to believe, you are actually the one who misread those sentences.
RA: I'm not talking about you quoting me -- I'm talking about the sentences that came out of your own head about me speaking for Rick Warren. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR HIM. So please retract those words of yours and remove them from the article -- otherwise, it will be very clear that you are not interesting in communicating, nor are you interested in truth. Please, if you cannot even accept from me a statement like "I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN," but would rather hold on to an illusion, that speaks volumes about your place in the very important discussion we are seekingto have at this blog.
___________
KS: Well Richard, you did speak for Warren in the sense of sharing what you understand him to believe.
RA: Ken, please, don't play twisty word games. I do not SPEAK for J.K Rowling. I do not SPEAK for Eckhart Tolle. I do not SPEAK for Dan brown. And I do not SPEAK for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But I have certainly shared my understanding of what all of them believe, too. Ken, I am imploring you, please start being honest and stop playing these unproductive, hurtful fruitless games. These are very serious issues.
With a heavy heart, I fear that seeking, no matter how hard, to discuss these things with you, will be utterly fruitless/frustrating and only lead to more sin.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Maybe Teddy Roosevelt was a prophet:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Posted by: Harper | June 03, 2008 at 04:16 PM
RA: With a heavy heart, I fear that seeking, no matter how hard, to discuss these things with you, will be utterly fruitless/frustrating and only lead to more sin.
KS: O, I couldn't agree more. In my opinion you rank right uop there with Brian McLaren as the master of twisty words games. So therefore I fear that seeking, no matter how hard, to discuss these things with you Richard, will be utterly fruitless/frustrating and only lead to more sin on your part.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Chad,
I not no problems with the first paragraph. It's the second one where I have issues. First off, the Gospel is to be proclaimed. It's not about what we do since no one can "live the Gospel". It about what Christ as done. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
I see little of the type of social gospel in Acts, but I see a lot of the proclamation of the Gospel in word. Christians not were martyred for what they did, but what they proclaimed.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 03, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Dear brothers Richard Abanes and Ken Silva,
Your arguments with each other have gone way off the subject of this thread. It saddens me to see two Christians at each other throats like this in public. If you have these issues with each other, why don't you get each other's email addresses and take it up there? Or better still, meet each other over a coffee and discuss this... Oh scrap that idea, you'll have the whole restaurant as audience to your arguing.
I can see that you both love God. Please stop slandering each other and show love and respect to each other as the Bible commands us.
Love and Peace to you
Eugene
Posted by: Eugene Roberts | June 03, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Jason: Richard, based on what you've written, you and I have different definitions of "ministry philosophy" and since the context of our conversation is Chris's blog, I'm going to wait for more from him
RA: It might surprise you to learn that I probably don't have a personal ministry philosophy that different from yours. IN fact, I actually respect and use various different ministry philosophies. I can appreciate different ways for reaching out to the lost and seeing people saved.
If you are interested, you can ask me anything at my blog about my own personal faith/beliefs/philosophy of ministry. This, I agree, will not muddy the waters here at this blog. FYI, I have just posted my response to Bob DeWaay, and a summary of where things stand now.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 04:54 PM
KS: .... you rank right up there with Brian McLaren as the master of twisty words games. So therefore I fear that seeking, no matter how hard, to discuss these things with you Richard, will be utterly fruitless/frustrating and only lead to more sin on your part.
RA: But you really didn't answer anything I asked, nor did you address anything I actually said, did you? And this, pastor Ken, is the problem. We must begin dealing honestly, openly, thoughtfully, and rationally with each other - not hatefully, in anger, or with contempt. I have noted for you, where you have not accurately represented my role in what is happening. I do not speak for Rick Warren, and more than I speak for J.K. Rowling, Dan brown, Eckhart Tolle, or Mormonism. Please consider what I am saying. You are misrepresenting me in your article -- and that is only one of many places. We must be able to get past these minor issues to deal with bigger issues. I'm certainly ready to do so for Christ's sake and for the sake of the Body.
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Every time I see the name "Richard Abanes" appear these days and the comments he makes, my heart sinks and I get a knotted, twisted feeling in my guts. I have come to the place where I cannot bare to hear what he, or Rick Warren, have to say. I cannot even read Mr. Abanes comments on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter now, I just read all the others and I am not reading the Chad persons comments anymore either, he sounds no different than Mr. Abanes in his constant defense of Rick Warren and his Scripture twistings. I do not trust them. They may be really nice and friendly in real life but I believe they do not handle the Word of Truth aright. They have nothing to say to me. I trust Chris Rosebrough and Bob DeWaay far more than them.
I pray God gives Mr. Rosebrough the ability to clearly and concisely expose the rotteness and deceptiveness behind the whole Purpose Driven Program once and for all.
2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
Posted by: Douglas | June 03, 2008 at 05:01 PM
EUGENE,
I will most readily apologize to Ken for anything that you seem to feel false under the category of slander: i.e., "words FALSELY spoken that damage the reputation of another" or "an UNTRUTHFUL oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community."
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 05:02 PM
DOUGLAS: I cannot bare to hear what he, or Rick Warren, have to say. I cannot even read Mr. Abanes comments on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter now...
RA: And this is why the problem began, why it now exists, and why it will more than likely continue. Talk about one's heart sinking. (sigh). No wonder we have wars. :-(
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Dear Richard
I am sorry that I am not as eloquent at English to make myself clear. I see that the word slander means more than I originally thought. Thank you for correcting me. I want to ask you however to still consider to stop arguing with Ken Silva on this matter in public. Please consider doing what Jesus said in Matthew 5:21-24.
By the way I agree with you on your comments concerning Rick Warren and the P.E.A.C.E. program.
Posted by: Eugene Roberts | June 03, 2008 at 05:16 PM
"not hatefully, in anger, or with contempt"
Is this a problem you have Rchard? I certainly am not hateful, angry or contemptuous. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't take this stuff personally.
Why you can even ask yer new pal Rick Frueh. You see, I as an unworthy servant am only doing my best to attempt to be an obedient slave to my Master Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Eugene,
I appreciate your concern but what is going on here with Richard Abanes is exactly what this thread is about. Remember, he is a well known apologist and a longtime member of Saddleback so he is fruit of Rick Warren's ministry philosophy (reflective of one's theological beliefs) that we are examining.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 05:27 PM
KS: ".... he is fruit of Rick Warren's ministry philosophy (reflective of one's theological beliefs) that we are examining."
RA: What are my theological beliefs, Ken? Tell us all. I am interested to know 0 really.
Please, what are my theological beliefs (which by the way were rooted and grounded in scripture long before I had ever even heard of Rick Warren)?
You make the comment: "... he is fruit of Rick Warren's ministry philosophy (reflective of one's theological beliefs)." So, I am waiting to hear about my theology?
The only problem here is that if I actually try to correct you, and tell you, "NO, I don't believe that." You won't even accept my words -- since you have yet to even recognize my plea for you to understand, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN.
I began my responses here by saying I didn't want to fight with you. But you don't seem to want to do anything BUT fight.
RAbanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Dear Ken
I was hopefull at the start of this thread that we (including you and Richard) could, through dialogue, get past our differences and start proclaiming Christ to a world that desperately needs His Salvation. (See my comment "If you will allow me I want to be a voice out of Africa." ) We don't have to agree on the how or even the exact detail in the message, but can we please start doing it?
I'm starting to feel hopeless that we as Church of Christ will ever reach that point.
Respectfully
Eugene
Posted by: Eugene Roberts | June 03, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Cheer up Eugene,
Christ is our hope, and we are His body. Don't forget the end of the book. We win in the end! no matter how bad we try to screw it up.
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." - GK Chesterton
Posted by: Brett S | June 03, 2008 at 05:47 PM