Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - My Presuppositions

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.

Comments

[Eugene Roberts]

It is late here is South Africa and I'm going to bed now. I'm praying that God will do a miracle and tomorrow I will wake up to a world where the Church actually does what is suppose to do. Proclaim Christ's Good News and continue His work on earth.
A naive faith good night to you all...

[Ted Tschopp]

You said: "Instead, the ones sowing division in the Church ARE the people who are teaching the false doctrine, not the ones exposing them."

I would also point out that those individuals who are accusing a person of sowing division in the church, but are following the biblical mandate to test are also the ones sowing division. The two groups do not necessarly need to be the same group. Cheerleaders are just as guilty as the players in this case.

Also your position and critique should take into account Jesus's parable of the wheat and the tares. Matt 13:24-30

[Chris Rosebrough]

I don't want to pick on one party or another because I've seen this a million times and I've participated in it just as many times.

I need to ask, beg, beseech SOME of ya'll to find a way to discuss these things in a way that is in accordance with the Gospel. And what I mean by that is in a manner that extends the same grace and mercy that Christ has extended to you in dying for and forgiving your sins.

There is a lot at stake here. Paul's warning in 2 Timothy 2:14 applies.

2Tim. 2:14   Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

Brothers and sisters, please please please for the sake of those listening and watching us, find a way to discuss these issues without taking it down to a street fight that only 'ruins the hearers'.

[Richard Abanes]

CHris,

Thank you.

KEn,

Tell me what i need to apologize for. Let's start again. What have I said to offend you, hurt you, and seemingly anger you. From my end, at this point, I am only:

1. Asking you to please accept my words when I say I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN. I do not feel this is a lot to ask for.

2. Asking you to tell me where my theology is apparently amiss in your eyes, since you stated that I am the "fruit of Rick Warren's ministry philosophy (reflective of one's theological beliefs)." Where is my theology offensive, unbiblical, unorthodox, false, in error? Again, I do not feel this is a lot to ask for.

This is where I stand.

R. Abanes

[Ken Silva]

RA: "you have yet to even recognize my plea for you to understand, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN."

KS: Earlier I already went over what I said. Perhaps you struggle with reading comprehension - "Richard Abanes Speaks For Rick Warren And Clarifies His Position". Richard, you did speak for Warren in the sense of sharing what you understand him to believe, which you are ALL over the Net doing time and time again.

Notice carefully, I did not say here that you spoke for him authoritatively, though again there are many who would assume that you do because of the frequency with which you defend him and assure us because you go to Saddleback that you know what he believes. This you can't get around.

And I gave you the opportunity to look closely at who is in fact the subject of that particular sentence. And I clearly stated it is you. You know what, since I am the author of that sentence it is beyond resonable doubt that I know what I meant.

So just as you tell that you don't speak FOR Rick Warren and I am told by you I must take that as the truth now you must take my word for what I meant. As a well known evangelical Christian apologist (O, whatever might your theology be?) I'm sure you're well aquainted with logic.

As I said, and you appearently ignored, the "and" in the sentence in question is a conjunction. As such the sentence refers to "Richard Abanes clarifies his position." Which, again as I pointed out, you did when you included yourself in with the evangelicals who I say have the wrong view of Rome that I was discussing.

And we looked 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 have taken 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..."

I've answered you. You must not like what my answer is. And you know what, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I couldn't care less what you personally think of me, because quite frankly you know very litle about me.

[Ken Silva]

Richard,

You haven't offended me. I'm not angry. And what is being discussed will edify those who need to understand the time we live.

[catransplant48]

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?

Eugene Roberts, you got it exactly right. Bravo and well said.

Chris, for everyone's sake I think you ought to seriously consider disallowing KS to post for awhile until he can calm down. What purpose is his consistent negativity and refusal to be civil serving?

[Richard Abanes]

You just can't do it, can you?

I'm sorry for that. I really am. It's very, very tragic.

I wish you the best, Ken. I do.

RAbanes

PS. FYI, my theology is trinitarian/Calvinistic with charismatic leanings. My personal Lord and Savior is Jesus of Nazareth -- 100% God and 100% man - who by his death on the cross for my sins and his physical resurrection from the dead saved me from the wrath of God that should have fallen on me, yet by God's total grace, I was reconciled to him and justified in his sight, having accepted by faith his gift of eternal life, which was given to me by him when he sealed me to him for eternal life by the power of the Holy Spirit unto the day of Redemption when Jesus Christ will physically return to judge the living and the dead -- and his kingdom will have no end.

[Rick Frueh]

Let us remember that in spite of some of the major differences we might have with Rick Warren, most of us believe he is a blood bought believer who does do some very good things (along with his wife Kay).

[Heidi Sue]

Sandusky,

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.

Who said anything about one being exclusive of the other, in the sense of when and how they can/should/would be done? I thought I had taken the care to say that humanitarian care can most definitely be a means to the ends of evangelism. In fact, we can and should do both. (Woe to those who don't take care of the folks who need it... not damnation, but woe!) I also don't understand why both can't happen. It's quite frustrating, frankly, when folks insist that the physical care must come before the spiritual care. God works in too many different ways to put that sort of limit on how He works. (I think Jesus even forgave a couple people's sins before he healed them...)

The exclusive part is this: If someone does not believe that Jesus Christ died to save them from their sins, they are not saved. Period. No amount of humanitarian aid will help them. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15.3: the thing of first importance is that Christ Jesus died for our sins.

Why can't someone, Heidi Sue, walk alongside someone in their struggles and talk with them about Christ?

Didn't say they couldn't... only that if they don't talk with them about Jesus, they aren't evangelizing. Serving, yes; doing God's earthly kingdom work, yes; evangelizing, no.

And what if the person rejects Christ? Are we to then ignore that person?
Didn't say that either... if they reject Christ, we still help out, both to show God's light before men that they might recognize God's glory (and maybe God would even use that situation to turn them around!) and just 'cuz God says to help out.

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?

Of course it's the Holy Spirit working... I never said otherwise. However, the Holy Spirit works through means, particularly through hearing the Gospel! "How will they call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10.14)

I think that we narrow "evangelism" when we say that it must be only about preaching doctrine and theology to someone.

Take it up with Paul (Romans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, etc.). Look how he actually uses the word ευαγγελιζω.

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.

It is good news to all parts of our lives, but because we have the certainty of salvation, knowing that we have a part in the new heavens and new earth God has in store, a full restoration that will come when Christ returns. God gives no guarantee whatsoever that He's going to have an earthly kingdom where all Christians (let alone all people) will have healthy, "happy" lives.

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.

Amen! ...except for one nitpicky thing (I'm sorry... it's just in my blood!): that whole "believing in Jesus as my Savior" thing is, by definition, a creed. This is not--I repeat, not--to say that faith is something we do, but it's still a creed; it's the faith God works in us to save us.

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.

The only "proper" thing to worry about with evangelism is that it is done. Again, if someone never hears about Jesus, they will never know the Good News. And again, it's not the evangelist who saves, but God. Of course, there are a myriad of ways to proclaim the Gospel. Of course, we have the calling to take care of people's physical needs along with their spiritual needs.

Calling things what they are does not mean they don't work together. Can you have humanitarian aid without talking about Jesus? Of course. Can you talk about Jesus without giving someone humanitarian aid? Of course. Should you? I don't think so.

Saying something has primary importance does not exclude the importance of other things; it simply sets priorities.

I applaud your desire to both evangelize and serve people. I pray that you and all the others posting here (including myself) would have the opportunity to do so. But if you're "just" (and I don't mean that as a pejorative in any way) fulfilling humanitarian needs, unless you are also preaching Christ, you are not evangelizing. If that statement irks you, the easiest solution is the one you gave yourself--make sure you're talking about Jesus while you're walking along side them.

May God go with you and turn many hearts through you in your walk!

HS

[Ken Silva]

catrans,

Thanks for your concern but I'm really not angry. And the time of rampant apostasy we live in is negative. Please understand that ignoring it and being "positive" isn't the answer.

Richard,

I wish you the best as well. It's nothing personal. You and I just don't speak the same language.

[Richard Abanes]

HS,

Would you have a problem at all with the PEACE PLAN if it's entire creation and "purpose" (no pun intended) was to not only alleviate suffering, but preach the gospel - and to accomplish that goal was trying to eradicate anything that might hinder the spread of the Gospel?

I can't see why you'd object to such a plan. If you don't object, then why are you against the PEACE PLAN - because that's what it is?

If you do object, given the above parameters, why would you?

And you are right, the HS DOES work through means - primarily the preaching of the direct Gospel, but also by music, living as an example, seasoning our conversations with salt, loving others, etc. etc. etc. There is planting, watering, and harvesting. And LOTS of different things can take place along that route.

RAbanes

R. Abanes

[Rick Frueh]

Thank you, Ken.

[Ken Silva]

Hey Rick,

Not a problem my friend. 8^)

[Heidi Sue]

Herr Abanes,

I don't recall ever saying I was either for or against the PEACE plan. (I can understand if you accidentally conflated my comments with other folks' posts--these longer threads get a bit confusing at times, so no harm, no foul.) I am against any "outreach", "mission", or "evangelism" program that does not actually preach the Gospel, no matter if it comes from a world-renowned source such as Rick Warren or from the soup kitchen down the street.

I'm honestly not familiar enough with the present incarnation of the PEACE plan, so I can't really say definitively what I feel about it. I only know that I believe what I've written: If someone never hears that Jesus Christ died to save them from their sins, they won't be able to believe that Jesus Christ died to save them from their sins. They might be able to believe in God based on their natural surroundings, but they won't be able to believe that God became flesh, died in our place, and freely gives us the benefits.

Would you have a problem at all with the PEACE PLAN if it's entire creation and "purpose" (no pun intended) was to not only alleviate suffering, but preach the gospel - and to accomplish that goal was trying to eradicate anything that might hinder the spread of the Gospel?

I have no problem whatsoever with the PEACE plan, period... as long as it is recognized for what it is. Again, I'm not entirely clear on what it is intended to be, but if it's being touted as evangelism, and Jesus is not preached, it sends the message that people can believe in Jesus without actually knowing who Jesus is. (I don't really buy into the whole Roman Catholic "unaware Christian" concept.) This allows people to assume that if they're just doing good things for people, that's all they need. It's like saying Oma Schmidt's soup kitchen is a mission if the servers only ladle out soup without ever mentioning why. Oma Schmidt's still doing good and necessary things, but she's not giving the Good News. Praise her for serving her neighbor, but not for evangelizing.

If, on the other hand, it's being billed as a means toward evangelism, that is, as a tool in Saddleback's bag that God can use to break down barriers, it could be very effective, as long as it is consistently driving toward proclamation of the Gospel.

Even if it ends up being "just" a large-scale service project with no intent to evangelize whatsoever, that's great, so long as people don't think they're doing the particular work of evangelism. There is no need to try and justify humanitarian aid or make it sound better by calling it what it isn't--it's worth doing in and of itself!

So for the CliffsNotes version: I don't object at all to the PEACE plan as I know it per se; I object only to advertisement that has the potential to be misleading. That is, don't tell someone they're evangelizing if they don't mention Jesus.

(Again, I'm laying out parameters, not saying how the PEACE plan does or does not fit into those parameters.)

And you are right, the HS DOES work through means - primarily the preaching of the direct Gospel, but also by music, living as an example, seasoning our conversations with salt, loving others, etc. etc. etc. There is planting, watering, and harvesting. And LOTS of different things can take place along that route.

All the other things are useful in helping proclaim Jesus, but if the music never says anything about how He sacrificed Himself for you, how will you know that He did? If I live an exemplary life, how do you know I'm not living out the example of Buddha? If I'm having flavorful conversations, but never mention Jesus, how would anyone know they're not drinking antifreeze? If I'm loving others, but never share with them that it's because Jesus loves me enough to die in my place, how will they know it's not just because I'm a loving, tender-hearted person or on my hundredth time around Samsara?

I'm glad lots of different things happen for each of us along the route--life would be boring otherwise; but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus is still the only Way, Truth and Life that people must hear in order to believe in order to call on in order to be saved.

HS

[Richard Abanes]

HS: Herr Abanes
RA: ????

_______
HS: I don't recall ever saying I was either for or against the PEACE plan. (I can understand if you accidentally conflated my comments with other folks' posts--these longer threads get a bit confusing at times, so no harm, no foul.) I am against any "outreach", "mission", or "evangelism" program that does not actually preach the Gospel, no matter if it comes from a world-renowned source such as Rick Warren or from the soup kitchen down the street.
RA: Yeah, primarily I was just asking. And I wasn't sure exactly of your views, but I would not have been surprised if you stood against it.

_______
HS: All the other things are useful in helping proclaim Jesus, but if the music never says anything about how He sacrificed Himself for you, how will you know that He did?
RA: Agreed, I am talking mostly about the ineffable way God uses all kinds of things not only in isolation, but in conjunction with other things. Hence, my planting, watering, harvesting allusion.

________
HS: If I live an exemplary life, how do you know I'm not living out the example of Buddha? If I'm having flavorful conversations, but never mention Jesus, how would anyone know they're not drinking antifreeze? If I'm loving others, but never share with them that it's because Jesus loves me enough to die in my place, how will they know it's not just because I'm a loving, tender-hearted person or on my hundredth time around Samsara?
RA: Yes, agreed. I was not speaking of these tings in isolation. A person can live a whole life as a great example, and do it for Jesus, but if they don't explain its for Jesus, no one will ever know.

HS: ...... that doesn't change the fact that Jesus is still the only Way, Truth and Life that people must hear in order to believe in order to call on in order to be saved.
RA: Agreed 100%. TY for clarifying.

RA

[Heidi Sue]

Hallelujah, I think we're finally getting some peaceable resolutions on this thread! May God continue to point us toward gentleness and respect!

(Oh, and RA, don't ponder the "Herr" thing too much... strange habits show up at strange times.)

[Keith]

Rick Freuh said: "...most of us believe he is a blood bought believer who does do some very good things (along with his wife Kay).(Emphasis mine)

Like what? My experience with PD was nothing short of a disaster that resulted in our family leaving a church we had attended for over 16 years. The leadership crammed PD down our throats...and if you asked anyone at that church today (I have) if it made any difference/positive impact, the answer was/is always "no." Waste of money, time and resources. But hallejuah, RW was able to give 90% of what the church spent on PD notepads, journals, books and steak knife sets to charity!

[Zek]

RA:” Are you talking about Saddleback and Warren??? Forgive me, but this is very, very, very, odd to me. I've never once gotten this impression from anyone or anything at Saddleback, least of all Rick Warren or anything he's taught to my ears in the last 15 years.”

Here is my point to that, if RW fails to preach the entire council of God (on Sundays, when he has the best chance of reaching everybody, not just printed on a statement of faith), IE man’s true condition of “total depravity”, at odds with God before conversion, Christ crucified, atonement, propitiation, the “finished work that is Christ’s alone”. Given that it pleases God when the true/ entire gospel is preached, salvation is of God, Christ alone, with the best odds of the Holy Spirit working salvation when the gospel is preached.

You end up with two huge problems when that is not happening, one we have talked a lot about on this thread (sinners on their way to hell), the other an issue of feeling like you have to earn it.

First, I would argue that RW would be better off preaching Christ crucified every Sunday, work on the largest problem of sinners going to hell, as appose to the 5 global goliaths. (worry about the wrath of God intended for sinners before conversion, the God that can kill you but also deal with your spirit after death). RW is not doing this consistently because he isn’t preaching Christ Crucified, Sunday in, Sunday out. Let God worry about how that message falls on the people that end up at Saddleback.

Second, when converts happen (by God’s work alone) under the poor gospel preaching of RW, these converts (fragile sheep) don’t get the entire gospel message, they have no idea what they were saved from (the wrath that was intended for them that God propitiated). As John Piper put it once they (fragile sheep) compare their salvation, like getting saved from a “bad marriage” or a “bad financial problem”, not the wrath of God, that was propitiated because of nothing they did! Couple that with them (fragile sheep) not ever understanding their true condition of “total depravity” they (fragile sheep) don’t even really know why they need to be saved in the first place, they (fragile sheep) think they are “somewhat good” not dead in sin! They also don’t get an appropriate view of a Holy God, they think that God is just “bigger & better” not set apart. The conclusion, is that when they try and reconcile to a Holy God, it ends up being more about “works”, they must have to keep some rules read their PDL book, be good, or whatever, regardless that the Saddleback statement of faith probably says salvation is by faith apart from works. Because “Christ crucified” is not taught week after week, and psychology methods, “10 steps”, & “How to succeed with your finances with Christ” are preached in place of that. The (fragile sheep) never gets the understanding how they got saved in the first place, and thus turns to not “working their salvation out with fear and trembling” but rather feeling like that have to do something for Christ, almost like paying off a debt. The PDL model & methods are closer to this extreme, rather than “Christ alone”, and this is the flip side problem to a watered down gospel.

[Richard Abanes]

Rick F.: "...most of us believe he is a blood bought believer who does do some very good things (along with his wife Kay).

KEITH: Like what? My experience with PD was nothing short of a disaster that resulted in our family leaving a church we had attended for over 16 years. The leadership crammed PD down our throats...and if you asked anyone at that church today (I have) if it made any difference/positive impact, the answer was/is always "no." Waste of money, time and resources. But hallejuah, RW was able to give 90% of what the church spent on PD notepads, journals, books and steak knife sets to charity!

RA: Keith, I want to be careful here, because I understand you have been hurt. And I'm sorry for that. And I don't want to minmize or trivialize your pain in any way. I would ask, however, that you (liek all of us) be very carful in how we respond after being hurt. I thinkn hurting others after we have been hurt is bad, too. Not only for others, but also for oursleves, because saying things destructive and acting out our hurt willl only prolong our pain.

I no your angry/hurt, but saying things such as "like what?" doesn't addresss the issues we are trying to address. Warren has done, is doing, and will probably continue to do, a lot of good. That fact can be established in the lives of countless people who: a) are now living in a vibrant relatioship with Jesus Christ as a result of his preaching, or the preaching at some PDL church; and/or b) are now living a better life in some third world country as a result of aid/assistance that has come to them through the PEACE Plan. The same can be said for Kay, who I happen to know, loves Jesus a great deal, and is shattered inside over the pain/anguish that peopel are enduring worldwide as a result of tihngs like AIDS, poverty, malnutrition, and illiteracy.

On a church level, you cannot negate or dismiss the hundreds and hundreds of chruches where PDC has helped the congregation, pastor, and church to become more vibrant, Christ-centered, balanced, healthy, and growing. I have met and spoken to pastors, church leaders, and lay church members who feel just as passionate as you, but in the opposite direction, about PDC. They thank God for it and are grateful that PDC came along to help them with teh problems they were having.

______________
KEITH: The leadership crammed PD down our throats...

RA: Warren has ALWAYS presented his pwn personal experiences and his PDC paradigm a tools for pastors to take and use as THEY see fit -- counseling them to alter his basic principles in a way that could serve them and THEIR churches best. I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Why are you blaming everything on Warren? What about your pastor? Your leadership? Where is any responsibility on them for the apparent disaster at your church?

Warren wrote a book. He offers a paradigm for church health. He makes resources available that, in and of themselves, are fine -- and they work at many many many churches. Your pastor and his associates were/are responsible for their flock. That is not Warren's job to police the world. People can take ANYTHING and screw it up or use it unwisely --- church organizational strategies, campfires, the Bible, sexuality, you name it. Warren can be held accountable only so much for what people do in the far flung reaches of the world where they get their hands on PDC and decide to try implement and it fails.

_______________
KEITH: But hallejuah, RW was able to give 90% of what the church spent on PD notepads, journals, books and steak knife sets to charity!

RA: You need to let go of this. Maybe god wanted you and your family to move on somewhere else. Did you tihnk of that? We know that nothing reaches us that god does not allow. More important than Warren here, I think is you.

- How are YOU handling it?
- What has it shown about your character and heart?
- Have you grown from the experience?
- Is it possible that your leaving for another church might have been the best thing possible so you and your family could meet new Christians, minister in different ways, and grow through new experiences?

This is how I try to look at trials in my life. Just some thoughts.

RAbanes

[Keith]

RA said: "I no [sic] your angry/hurt,..." Really? How could you? Are you implying that you have been "hurt" by a ministry...?

RA said: "Is it possible that your leaving for another church might have been the best thing possible so you and your family could meet new Christians, minister in different ways, and grow through new experiences?"

Richard you may be right. We DID find a better church...one that relied on the authority of Scripture rather than a gimmick and novelty items.

RA said: "You need to let go of this." I will if you will.

RA asked: "How are YOU handling it?" I warn as many people as I can against the watered-down teaching of PDC and PDL.

RA, do you REALLY think you're "converting" anyone on THIS site? I imagine most people that read this blog on a regular basis (as I do) have already made up their minds re: RW. You're time (and you seem to have a lot of it) might be better spent at the "hug feast" going on over at CRN.Info.

[Richard Abanes]

ZEK: If RW fails to preach the entire council of God (on Sundays, when he has the best chance of reaching everybody, not just printed on a statement of faith), IE man’s true condition of “total depravity”, at odds with God before conversion, Christ crucified, atonement, propitiation, the “finished work that is Christ’s alone”. Given that it pleases God when the true/ entire gospel is preached, salvation is of God, Christ alone, with the best odds of the Holy Spirit working salvation when the gospel is preached. You end up with two huge problems when that is not happening, one we have talked a lot about on this thread (sinners on their way to hell), the other an issue of feeling like you have to earn it.

RA: I think you are giving an either/or scenario that does not exist. This is the either/or fallacy. There are OTHER options in addition to the ones who give. But by using this logical fallacy, you can make your case appear legitimate. It's an inaccurate assessment, however.

Every Sunday sermon does NOT have to be a full blown systematic theology course straight out a seminary or textbook. A pastor can talk about all kinds of issues relating to life and godliness and point people to Jesus Christ, who is the only way of salvation, as well as the only way to handle the troubles of life. Everything you listed doctrinally reads like a pamphlet from some classroom study guide. Preaching does not have to be like that. Look at Jesus' sermons. He spoke to people and met them where they were, addressing their cares, concerns, worries, fears, frustrations, unmet hopes, dreams, emotional scars, and physical needs, and spiritual emptiness. Then he pointed to himself as the answer to......well, everything!

________
ZEK I would argue that RW would be better off preaching Christ crucified every Sunday, work on the largest problem of sinners going to hell, as appose to the 5 global goliaths.

RA: Please see my Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:03 AM post about the PEACE PLAN.

___________
ZEK: RW is not doing this consistently because he isn’t preaching Christ Crucified, Sunday in, Sunday out. Let God worry about how that message falls on the people that end up at Saddleback.

RA: Wait a minute, wait a minute. As preachers of God's Word and as witnessing, we are NOT to just disengage our minds, and preach/share some canned presentation of the Gospel, complete with XYZ listed scriptures to fit whatever mold is being used to measure what it means to preach Christ crucified every Sunday in and Sunday out.

And as for preaching Christ crucified, in many ways Warren does just that. But he doesn't get up there and preach it using terminology you might be accustomed to, or comfortable with. And that's why you go to a different church -- I'm glad for you. Awesome. Christ is preached at Saddleback. I've provided links before, and if you want, I'll provide them again. So you cannot say that Christ is not preached there because it is indeed preached there -- that's why untold numbers of people have come into a deep abiding faith in Christ at Saddleback.

To me, it sounds like you want every servant of the Master to preach, teach, speak, talk, act, and quote the Bible exactly like the preacher you are used to hearing and in the way you like to hear it for yourself. But that standard of measure is nowhere found in scripture.

____________
ZEK: [FRAGILE SHEEP PARAGRAPH]

RA: Zek, to me you are making assumptions all over the place based on nothing more than your own presuppositions and subjective opinions. As I was reading, all I could see was you:

1) speaking of hypothetical "fragile sheep,"
2) guesses about what they such sheep are or are not thinking,
3) extrapolations from Warren's sermons that are not founded on fact
4) so-called "works" placed on people that are totally unknown to the people you claim are suffering from them

A perfect example is this assertion: "They also don’t get an appropriate view of a Holy God, they think that God is just “bigger & better” not set apart. The conclusion, is that when they try and reconcile to a Holy God, it ends up being more about “works”, they must have to keep some rules read their PDL book, be good, or whatever, regardless that the Saddleback statement of faith probably says salvation is by faith apart from works.

You are not getting this from anything Warren preaches, and certainly not from what anyone at Saddleback believes (at least no one I know, and I know a LOT of people). You can't TELL people what they believe, you have to ask them what they believe and analyze THAT. I am telling you, no one at Saddleback is feeling ANYTHING remotely close to what you are describing here. If anything, the very opposite is true!!! Grace, free forgiveness, and total lack of any works is just this side of almost being pushed too much! Now what do you do with that information!

You want works righteousness? Go listen to some of the sermons by Raul Ries. Why isn't there a hue and cry over his sermons. I attended his church for years and I was forever feeling, as were many other attenders, that I was going to lose my salvation any moment. And then, there was the threat of the partial-rapture over my head. If I wasn't towing the line enough and being obedient enough at the rapture, then I'd be left behind and have to beheaded to go to heaven!! That's about as close to works righteousness as you can get. But how many articles do we see up on the Internet against Raul Ries?

RAbanes

[Keith]

Richard:
An afterthought here: I have an appreciation for John MacArthur's ministry, but I do not scour the web looking for sites which are negative toward him where I can camp and endlessly post in his defense. Why the obsession? If people don't like Rick Warren for WHATEVER reason, so what? You and I probably wouldn't like each other (maybe already don't) if we met, but I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it. What's in it for you that you're willing to spend so much time at several sites defending Mr. Warren?

[Tom]

Keith, I think Richard responded to you in a pretty reasonable, caring, and even-keeled way. You're being a little too pissy, I think.

[Sandusky]

Heidi Sue,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post (and then RA's) in a thoughtful and respectful way. I drew some inappropriate conclusions from your first post that I realized (after reading your second) were wrong. I'm sorry about that. From the sounds of it, you and I agree on evangelism pretty much down the line.

[Keith]

Tom: That's the great thing about America (and blogs in general)...you can think that about me. I can think what I do about Rick Warren or Richard Abane. AND, we can openly express those opinions. Personally, I find Richard to be arrogant and condescending, but that's just me I guess.

[Richard Abanes]

JASON: I have an appreciation for John MacArthur's ministry, but I do not scour the web looking for sites which are negative toward him where I can camp and endlessly post in his defense. Why the obsession? If people don't like Rick Warren for WHATEVER reason, so what?

RA: I am REALLY REALLY REALLY glad you asked that.

This whole Rick Warren thing is a mere catalyst for larger issues -- truth, discernment, accountability, Christian love, caution, heresy-hunting, godliness, humility, agape, unity, apologetics in general, the nature of true discernment, and unnecessary division in the Body of Christ. These are the REAL issues -- not Rick Warren per se.

As noted before, I've been in full-time ministry of nearly 15 years dealing with a wide range of issues. During those years, I've only produced a short booklet on Warren, briefly posted about him on the Internet in mid-2005, then wrote/said NOTHING on him for nearly three years -- until barely five months ago. This sliver of time out of so many years of ministry is like a drop in the bucket to me.

And as I have also said, THIS IS NOT ABOUT RICK WARREN PER SE TO ME ANYMORE!

I started talking about Warren again because of the grievously sinful ways people were attacking him under the guise of "discernment, "standing for truth," and apologetics. For many of these so-called "watchmen" (as they liked to be called), standing for truth is something that went out the door long ago. It has become for them a matter of attacking, being right, winning a fight, destroying someone, nit-picking, accusing the brethren, slandering others, and dividing the church.

This is NOT the way to do apologetics. This is NOT discernment. This is NOT Christ-honoring, biblical, or loving. And because apologetics is near/dear to my heart, I am taking time to step in and say, "Please, this must stop, or in the end, apologetics is going to be destroyed as a valid ministry."

I want to stress, the issue is not necessarily Warren anymore as much as it is about: truth, discernment, accountability, Christian love, caution, heresy-hunting, godliness, humility, agape, unity, apologetics in general, the nature of true discernment, and unnecessary division in the Body of Christ.

To me, Warren has become a catalyst, a lightening rod, if you will, that brings out all of these issues, and puts them into the light so that they can be seen and discussed.

____________
KEITH: Personally, I find Richard to be arrogant and condescending, but that's just me I guess.

RA: Well, Chris has met me personally. Feel free to email him for his thoughts. Otherwise, if you could point out anything I've said that sounded arrogant and condescending, I will look and see what word choices I made that might be giving off that impression in a blog arena, as opposed to a one-on-one talking in person situation. I am certainly open to learning how to better communicate in the blogsphere.

R. Abanes

[Tom]

Keith - I totally agree with you. Peace.

[Keith]

Richard: I'm just one guy that likes to "stir the pot" from time-to-time. It's not worth bothering Chris or anyone else. It is what it is.

[Richard Abanes]

K,

Well, I can't really change, grow, or learn if you won't help me see where something I've stated as come off as "arrogant and condescending." :-( Sigh.

At least I DID try, though. Do I get any points for that? :-)

R. Abanes

[Keith]

RA asked: "At least I DID try, though. Do I get any points for that? :-)"

Sure! Just don't spend them all in the same place. 8^)>

[Blue]

I'm glad someone else brought it up.

I agree with Keith on the arrogance and condescension issue.

[Richard Abanes]

BLUE: I'm glad someone else brought it up. I agree with Keith on the arrogance and condescension issue.

RA: Friend, it does not help me or anyone else just to make this kind of statement. As I asked above:

"...if you could point out anything I've said that sounded arrogant and condescending, I will look and see what word choices I made that might be giving off that impression in a blog arena, as opposed to a one-on-one talking in person situation."

So, please, help me out a little bit here. As I have also posted above: "I am certainly open to learning how to better communicate in the blogsphere."

R. Abanes

[Blue]

RA, sometimes I can sense a humble spirit in your comments, but I have to really strive to find it. Most everything you post comes across as arrogant. You and your buddies remind me of the bullies in the movie The Karate Kid. (I'm saying this lightheartedly, btw.)

As one that has never read RW books and have observed the behaviors of many of the people influenced by PD locally, I can say that their fruit is boastful and prideful, with endless bragging about their mini vacation/mission trips. They pump themselves up every chance they get.

I don't attend church for this very reason. It took a while to figure it out, but eventually I was able to see where this type of mindset was rooted. I've moved many times in my adult life and have never had a "church home", but have visited and attended many churches over the years. Some of the most unfriendly churches I've been to are PD, with an attitude of a social atmosphere only. They are cliquish and self-centered, which isn't the type of attitude that I want to instill in my children.

Also, I hate to bring it up, but I did a google search of RW and three popular images show up on the same page of him with his arms outstretched. There is one of him in the water, one of him standing before a sunset, and another of him on stage. Those images are being used to promote RW, in a crosslike fashion. It's creepy! RW shouldn't allow that.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=rick+warren&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RW recommend getting rid of the crosses in churches? It seems to me, as a bystander watching the turmoil spin around and around, that RW has set himself up as the new christ. I've watched him in interviews on CNN and FOX. His message is soft, never pointing people to Christ, but to himself and his programs.

Is he above rebuke and criticism? Is it possible that he is wrong on some things, possibly many? Has he ever admitted to being wrong about anything? From where I am, all I see is a merry-go-round of several bible versions to make excuses for and justify what he says and writes, never a humble spirit. Being willing to have your picture taken with your critics isn't actually being humble, it's just furthering the "image" that he's created about himself.

I think there may be something to those saying that this is a type of a "social gospel". I was shocked the first time I heard a priest say in an interview on TV that "Jesus is a socialist". Isn't this what this is boiling down to, those that are on the Marxism bandwagon and those that are not?

Given that I have been reading Arthur Ransome books about Russia 1919, it does seem interesting this push to unite all religions, like a centralized religion that is centered around Purpose Driven. Lenin's supporters were a lot like you, willing to go to any lengths to promote and protect "the cause".

PD is not Christ centered, it's RW centered.

I apologize if this comes across badly. I'm just trying to tell you what I see and hear and what it looks like to me.

[Richard Abanes]

BLUE: Most everything you post comes across as arrogant.
RA: Yeah, but you haven't told me where or why......

__________
BLUE: with endless bragging about their mini vacation/mission trips.
RA: Oh, sort of the way all parents brag on their kids? How about considering that they are really really really happy and blessed about the trips they've gone on to other countries for God and maybe they express themselves differently than you might. Ever consider that?

The one thing I keep seeing agian and again and again is how Warren's critics keep measuring him and those who go to PDC churches by THEIR OWN behaviors, likes, dislikes, ways of expression, tastes in music, methods of witnessing, modes of preaching, etc etc etc. And this all becomes the measuring rod for what is and is not biblical. Basically, our/my way is god's way - thus saith, me.

_________
BLUE: It took a while to figure it out, but eventually I was able to see where this type of mindset was rooted. I've moved many times in my adult life and have never had a "church home", but have visited and attended many churches over the years. Some of the most unfriendly churches I've been to are PD, with an attitude of a social atmosphere only. They are cliquish and self-centered, which isn't the type of attitude that I want to instill in my children.

RA: Well, I have no idea what kind of churches you've been in, because I've been to a few myself, and one of the things that I've noticed is that the people are about the friendliest you'd ever want to meet.

___________
BLUE: I did a google search of RW and three popular images show up on the same page of him with his arms outstretched. There is one of him in the water, one of him standing before a sunset, and another of him on stage. Those images are being used to promote RW, in a cross-like fashion. It's creepy! RW shouldn't allow that.

RA: ROFL. It's just him holding his arms up. Doesn't look like much of a cross to me. Again, why is this wrong? Where are pictures labeled as wrong in the Bible. Why is something you find "creepy" instantly the end-all-be-all judgment that definitely means Rick Warren is creepy, too, or that his use of pictures is ungodly. We live in a media world, billions of pictures are all over the Internet, and many people -- unlike you -- actually like seeing pictures like that. Are they all wrong and you are right? If you don't like pictures (in whatever poses), then if you were ever to patsor a church, or become a public speaker, you could say you don't want to use them. Fine. But why condemn Warren for....pictures of all things.

___________
BLUE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RW recommend getting rid of the crosses in churches?

RA: You're wrong.......a 150ft or so cross is right outside the entrance to the worship center, and inside the worship center a 10-15 ft cross hangs right up from for all to see!!!!!! This is a PERFECT example of some of these bizarre rumors floating around.

___________
BLUE: It seems to me, as a bystander watching the turmoil spin around and around, that RW has set himself up as the new christ.

RA: Oh may......I can't even really dignify this with an answer.

_____________
BLUE: Is he above rebuke and criticism? Is it possible that he is wrong on some things, possibly many? Has he ever admitted to being wrong about anything?

RA: NO. Yes. Yes. (sigh).

_______________
BLUE: Given that I have been reading Arthur Ransome books about Russia 1919, it does seem interesting this push to unite all religions, like a centralized religion that is centered around Purpose Driven. Lenin's supporters were a lot like you, willing to go to any lengths to promote and protect "the cause".

RA: No one is trying to unite all religions at Saddleback. Heavens, here we go again. This is just getting to be too much. PLEASE read above, my Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:03 AM

R. Abanes

[Blue]

RA: ROFL. It's just him holding his arms up. Doesn't look like much of a cross to me. Again, why is this wrong? Where are pictures labeled as wrong in the Bible. Why is something you find "creepy" instantly the end-all-be-all judgment that definitely means Rick Warren is creepy, too, or that his use of pictures is ungodly. We live in a media world, billions of pictures are all over the Internet, and many people -- unlike you -- actually like seeing pictures like that. Are they all wrong and you are right? If you don't like pictures (in whatever poses), then if you were ever to patsor a church, or become a public speaker, you could say you don't want to use them. Fine. But why condemn Warren for....pictures of all things.

Blue: Oh the spin!! What a ride:-) You know as well as I do that pictures aren't wrong. These are popular pictures that the media uses to promote RW and his programs.

I've visited/attended SBC churches.

I did answer you, "most everything" is too much to copy and paste.

It's good to know that the cross thing was a rumor. I figured it was better to ask you than anybody else.

What does RW admit to being wrong about? Is everything PD right?

I'll go read your post again after I return from a ballgame. I'm trying to read them without being "colored" by my experiences with PD churches.

[Keith]

Richard said: "I am certainly open to learning how to better communicate in the blogsphere."

Well, I just returned from the CRN.Info site and it appears that you are more interested in being RIGHT rather than "learning how to better communicate..." You've got the communicate DOWN! I'm still trying to figure how:
1) How and WHY you spend so much time writing (sometimes VERY LONG posts) on multiple blogs
2) Why you can't just let it go. You have problems with MacArthur; fine. I don't, but I'm not going to spend the rest of the day monitoring what you might say about the man.

[Rick Frueh]

I happen to be the official defender and apologist for one Mr. Rick Frueh. I take a special interest in combating specious accusations against his impeccable character and his unassailable doctrine and theology. His is universally above approach.

There is only one caveat I would add, sometimes he genuinely doesn't deserve defending. :)

[Richard Abanes]

KEITH: 1) How and WHY you spend so much time writing (sometimes VERY LONG posts) on multiple blogs. 2) Why you can't just let it go. You have problems with MacArthur; fine. I don't, but I'm not going to spend the rest of the day monitoring what you might say about the man.

RA: Are you serious? LoL.

Dude, sorry to crack a smile, but uhm, scroll up a bit to my "June 04, 2008 at 07:54 AM" post -- I answered that question for JASON. And it's in the very same post that I answered you!!!!

It's right after the post in which you called me "arrogant and condescending." That might help you find it. :-) K, are you even reading these posts? Really, c'mon. Lol. :-)

R. Abanes

[Keith]

Richard: You are correct; you did answer the question, although to the wrong person. You attributed the question to "Jason" but I am the one that actually asked (see my post: June 04, 2008 at 06:12 AM). Since my name isn't Jason, but Keith, I simply glossed over your response. I really dont' have the time to read EVERY ONE of your responses to any and everyone you address here (and on other blogs).

I did go back and read your response to Jason/me. Man, as long as YOU believe it's true... (Now I'M the one cracking a smile)

"are you even reading these posts?" To be honest, if I see your name attached to a post? No. I've heard it before. Repeating it over and over and over doesn't change a thing.