Extreme Theology

Law & Gospel: Gospel

By Steven Newell

This is the third of a four part series on Law and Gospel that as originally posted on post-emergent.com on May 9, 2006.

The Gospel can be defined in many ways: First four books of the New Testament, the story of Christ, or Christ’s atonement for our sins. All three are correct. To understand the power for the Gospel and our need for it, we must understand God’s demand, our position, and Christ’s work for us. The Gospel is about making wicked man righteous before God. It’s not about making us into moral people, giving us victory in our lives, or even making us more loving to our neighbor.

Why We Need the Gospel

The only why to be with God, for eternity, is to keep God’s Law perfectly. Period. So, we must be found to perfectly keep God’s Law. If not, we will spend an eternity separated from God. This is the problem that all of us must deal with.

In the Old Testament, God demanded of Israel what He demands of us today, perfect obedience of His Law. God provided a means by which Israel could receive forgiven of their sins. It was by a lamb dieing for their sins. This atonement was made by an innocent victim taking the punishment for sinful people. In Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is set out as the time that the people confess their sins and their sins are forgiven through the sacrifice.

We, as Gentiles, are subject to same standards that God set out for Israel. We must obey the Law and we just keep all of the sacrifices that are commended in the Old Testament.

There was a major limitation to this system: Each year the high priest had to sacrifice a lamb to atone for the sins of Israel. The atonement was limited in that people were still accountable to the Law and had to fulfill the law. They were dependent on their ability to complete observe all of the Law for their salvation. The limitation of the animal sacrifice of sin pointed to the need for a final and complete solution. The writer of Hebrews point this out in Hebrews 10:1-18.

So we are back to obeying the Law, which we know we cannot perfectly obey. We are still in need for someone to perfectly obey the Law.

Why Jesus

Even before Jesus begins teaching about what He is about, John the Baptizer proclaims Jesus’ entire ministry in one sentence: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). As with the lamb in Old Testament, Jesus became the atonement for our sins. St. Paul put it best in 2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him who had no sin be to sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.”

Jesus is the perfect sacrifice for our sin. He is sinless and he fulfilled the requirements of the Law. The writer of Hebrews writes about this Hebrew 10 on why Jesus’ sacrifice was once for all. St. Peter writes in 1 Peter 1:18-19 “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver and gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”

In Jesus, we have the great exchange. Jesus imputed our sins on him at the cross and Jesus imputes his righteousness to our account. This is the Gospel. When God see us, He does not see our sin, but Christ’s righteousness. Martin Luther called this an “alien righteousness” since it is not our own righteousness, but Christ’ righteousness. In 1 Peter 2:24 we are taught that “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”

At the Cross, Christ forgave all our sins. When He said, “Father forgive them”, it was for all people, for all time. This was not just for the Roman soldiers or the Jewish leaders or even the mob that yelled “Crucify him!”

What Do We Do

Nothing. Anything we try to do is a sin. Why? When we try to add to our salvation, we are rejecting the complete work of Christ on the Cross. Salvation is a gift. Again St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” When we receive a gift, it is not due to our merit or effort. We accept the gift of God’s grace through faith. Even faith is a gift since we cannot create faith. In Romans 10:17, we learn that faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ. That is why faith only comes when the Gospel is preached. Faith comes through Word and Sacrament. Faith is also God’s gift to us, just as salvation is a gift.

The Roman Church teaches Faith + Works while many American “Evangelical” churches teach Faith + My Experience or Faith + My Acceptance. In any of these cases, it is faith plus something we do. This type of faith is not true faith, but provisional faith. When we understand that salvation is 100% God and 0% us, then we understand how sinful we are and how great God’s grace to us is.

Showing Christ’s Love Through Discipline

I’ve had time to think and process Warren’s response regarding disciplining Rupert Murdoch.

I think his response is tragic. The fact that is being lost on everyone is that we are ultimately talking about the eternal salvation of Rupert Murdoch. I don’t want Murdoch to face God’s wrath on Judgement Day. I don’t want Murdoch to perish for eternity in the fires of hell and neither does Jesus Christ.

Warren’s response can be summed up this way, “Murdoch isn’t a member of Saddleback church therefore it would be inappropriate for me to discipline him.”

This is a a dodge and a bad one at that. It is well documented that Rick Warren has claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor. This was a claim that Warren made, not Murdoch.

What Rick Warren seems to be forgetting here is that he has a profound opportunity to show the LOVE of Jesus Christ to Rupert Murdoch by disciplining him.

Warren has spent so much time flying around the world telling everyone how important it is to ‘do the Bible’ and show the love of Christ by feeding the poor and taking on global giants, that he has forgotten that discipline is another way which pastors are called to ‘do the Bible’. Discipline provides pastors with a rare and special opportunity to show the love of Christ to those under their pastoral care.

Here is what the scriptures say:

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Notice that this verse clearly says that the Lord disciplines us so that we may NOT be condemned along with the world. This is a very loving and positive aspect to discipline.

Hebrews 12:5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every sn whom he receives.”

Again, notice that the Lord disciplines those HE LOVES. We don’t like to be disciplined and disciplining someone is never easy and never fun. But this passage tells us that discipline is a loving act on God’s part towards his children.

Rick Warren needs to show the full spectrum of Christ’s love to Rupert Murdoch, a man whom he is pastoring.

Contrary to what Warren’s defenders have said, it is absolutely fitting and appropriate for Warren to discipline Murdoch, call him to repentance, and publicly call for him to dismantle his pornography empire.

This is literally THE MOST loving thing that Warren could do for Murdoch.

If Murdoch repents of his sins and receives Christ’s forgiveness then he will not be condemned with the rest of the world. He will be forever grateful to Rick Warren for showing him Christ’s love by disciplining him.

But, if Warren doesn’t show Christ’s love to Murdoch by disciplining him and Murdoch is judged to hell, he will FOREVER be asking the question, “Why didn’t Rick Warren show me Christ’s love by disciplining me? How come my pastor didn’t love me enough to call me to repentance?”

Rick Warren: “Any church that fails to fulfill the five purposes...is not really a church!”

by Chris Rosebrough

Yes you read that headline correctly. That is a quote from Rick Warren in Mark Kelly’s latest spin piece for Saddleback entitled “Seven myths about ‘Purpose Driven’”.

The piece itself has two wildly surreal statements in it, that if you consider what is really being said, ought to make you question the entire ‘Purpose Driven’ church concept.

The first is a quote from Rick Warren himself:

Rick Warren says: “The five purposes of the church commanded by Jesus in the Great Commandment and Great Commission never go out of style. They are not a fad. They are eternally relevant. Any church that fails to fulfill the five purposes Jesus established for his people is not really a church!”

Wow!?

If your church isn’t fulfilling the 5 Purposes, according to Rick Warren it “is not really a church!”

Maybe its me, but this sure does sound like a dogmatic and judgmental rebuke by Warren. This seems a little out of character for a person who according to his apologists, "prefers behind the scenes persuasion rather than public rebuke."

When you take this statement and add it to the next one, you will really be scratching your head.

Said Kelly:

“...you don’t have to be part of any particular denomination to implement PD principles. There are Purpose Driven congregations in more than 200 different denominations and associations. Our desire is to work with denominations to strengthen their churches. Each church can maintain its own heritage and doctrinal convictions while cooperating with others on accomplishing the five purposes...”

This seems really odd to me. On the one hand these folks say that any church that isn’t fulfilling the 5 purposes ‘is not really a church”. But on the other hand ANY church REGARDLESS OF DOCTRINAL CONVICTIONS can be Purpose Driven.

So with these PD folks, the truth of a church’s doctrinal statement doesn’t determine whether or not it is ‘really a church’. But, the thing that matters is whether or not they are fulfilling the 5 purposes.

By Saddleback's own admission, they work with over 200 denominations and help them all be Purpose Driven.

This explains why there are Purpose-Driven Catholics, Purpose-Driven Mormons and soon there will be Purpose-Driven Synagogues. (This must be what Warren means by Deeds not Creeds.)

Do you think there is anything wrong with a definition of church that embraces all churches regardless of doctrinal statements but denies that a church 'is really a church' if it has a difference of opinion with Rick Warren about the purposes it should be fulfilling?

This dichotomy is a little clearer when I put it in a math formula format.

If Rick Warren held both creeds AND Deeds in equal regard we'd expect to see formula 1 as the ONLY true definition of church:

1. Fulfilling 5 Purposes + Sound Doctrine = True Church (Deeds AND Creeds)

But based upon Warren's statement and the fact that ANY church regardless of DOCTRINE can be Purpose-Driven, the Saddleback way of thinking ALSO makes formula 2 a valid formula.

2. Fulfilling 5 Purposes + False Doctrine = True Church (Deeds NOT Creeds)

Warren's ideas also make formula 3 a valid equation.

3. Not Fulfilling 5 Purposes + Sound Doctrine = False Church (Deeds NOT Creeds)

Notice that the thing that decides whether or not a church is a TRUE CHURCH in their way of thinking hinges on fulfilling the 5 purposes. True doctrine is not a deciding factor it is only one of the Purpose Driven 'flavors' of church.

In other words, Warren's dogmatic focus is off. He should be dogmatic about BOTH Fulfilling the 5 Purposes AND sound doctrine. But he's not.

Sorry, but I can't accept this definition of church. Warren and his followers have elevated their ideas about the 5 purposes above sound doctrine. That is why there are Purpose Driven Catholics, Unitarians and United Pentecostals. Each of those groups subscribes to false doctrines and therefore are not part of the true church. But in Warren's way of thinking they are part of the true church.

Sorry but this doesn't fly with scripture.

---

As a counter point to Warren's ideas I offer my podcast entitled What is the Church? In that podcast I lay out the Biblical definition of the church.

Timeless Wisdom on Picking A Pastor

The January, 1945 issue of Moody Monthly documents the advice given by a resigning pastor to his congregation about how to pick his successor. His advice underscores the importance of ‘expository’ Bible preaching compared to those preachers who preach on one or two isolated Bible verses (Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels, and maybe even your local pastor). Here is the quote:

“Do not choose a man who always preaches on isolated texts, I care not how powerful and eloquent he may be. The effect of his eloquence will be to banish a taste for the Word of God and substitute a taste for the preacher in its place.”

This quote is a wonderful parallel to the advice that the Apostle Paul gave to Pastor Timothy.

2 Tim. 4:1   I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Pray that the Lord will send us shepherds that will again feed us God’s Word instead of this current diet of self-help and prosperity preaching.

Anatomy of Saddleback Spin - Part Two

In this article I am going to outline the highlights of the lies, smears, misdirection and sophistry employed by Mark Kelly and David Chrzan in the rebuttal piece written by Kelly entitled “No incentive for checking facts”. Although the article was pulled off the internet almost a quickly as it was posted, I’ve managed to reconstruct a copy of it from screen shots that I took of it.

One of the goals of this document was to spin the issue in such a way so as to allow Rick Warren to continue to be able to say that he is Rupert Murdoch's pastor but that the nature of their relationship makes it inappropriate for Warren to excercise pastorly discipline. As you read the story, also notice that what is missing from the document is any condemnation what-so-ever of Rupert Murdoch for his pornography holdings. Click Here to Read It.

Before I begin my response you need to know that Mark Kelly never shows me the courtesy of mentioning me by name in his rebuttal. I am only referred to as ‘the original blogger’. (The folks at Saddleback must think I am like Voldemort from the Harry Potter stories. I am the ‘blogger who must not be named’.) With this in mind let’s begin.

1. The title of the rebuttal

The title of the rebuttal itself ‘No incentive for checking facts’ is a smear and it implies that neither myself nor Joseph Farah had any reason for checking the facts of the story but that we benefit from passing off distortions and lies.

This is simply not true. America’s libel laws are still in effect and being sued for libel is plenty of incentive for any journalist or blogger to get his facts straight before publishing a story like this.

If Rick Warren never claimed to be Rupert Murdoch’s Pastor, as I claim that he has, then I invite Rick Warren to sue me for libel.

2. Membership is not the issue

Kelly’s defense which quotes from a letter written by David Chrzan who is Warren’s Chief of Staff begins by changing the subject. They present the very true fact that Murdoch is not a member of Saddleback Church as proof that Warren is not responsible for disciplining Murdoch.

As I pointed out in both my article entitled “Purpose Driven Pornography?” and Part One of this article. Murdoch’s membership at Saddleback is not the issue. From day one, I was very open about the fact that Murdoch was not member of Saddleback church.

The issue IS the fact that Rick Warren claims to be Rupert Murdoch’s pastor. Since, Rick Warren knows full well that Rupert Murdoch does not live in Orange County we must conclude that Warren’s ability to call himself Rupert’s Pastor is based upon something other than membership at Saddleback Church.

My contention is that because Rick made the claim to being Rupert’s pastor and Murdoch never publicly contradicted that claim the two of them have mutually entered into a Pastor/Parishioner relationship. The details and mechanism for forming this relationship are are unknown to us.

What we do know is that this was not achieved through the normal route of becoming a member of Saddleback.

3. ‘Never bothered to contact the church’

In paragraph five of his rebuttal Kelly said:

“Neither the original blogger (that’s me) nor Farah bothered to contact the church to ask whether Murdoch was a member.”

Point 1 - As I previously pointed out, membership at Saddleback is not the issue.

Point 2 - Kelly is twisting the truth when he says that neither Farah nor myself bothered to contact the church.

I DID contact the church and I posted the contents of that conversation on my blog. In my conversation I was specifically told by Pastor Warren’s secretary that Murdoch was not a member of Saddleback Church. I never attempted to hide or conceal this.

I cannot speak for Joseph Farah, but I cannot possibly imagine Joe Farah going to press with this story without first attempting to contact Rick Warren, especially after the whole Syria flap.

4. ‘He read somewhere’

Also in paragraph five Kelly says of me:

“The original writer jumped to that conclusion because he read somewhere that Warren said he was “Rupert Murdoch’s pastor.”

Kelly makes it sound like I read this in a bathroom stall in a truck stop in Modesto. But fact is, I first read this on Rick Warren’s own Pastors.com website. Here is the link.

There is only one reason that Kelly would write a sentence like this, that is because he is trying to smear me and cause his readers to think that my case isn’t built on demonstrable facts. But I am sure that anyone with even a little common sense would agree that Rick Warren's own website is more than just 'somewhere'. Furthermore, the person making the claim at that 'somewhere' was Rick Warren himself. I was hardly jumping to conclusions. I was simply believing what Pastor Warren had stated on his own website.

Here is the quote:

“I had dinner with Jack Welch last Sunday night,” [Warren] said. “He came to church, and we had dinner. I’ve been kind of mentoring him on his spiritual journey. And he said to me, ‘Rick, you are the biggest thinker I have ever met in my life. The only other person I know who thinks globally like you is Rupert Murdoch.’ And I said, ‘That’s interesting. I’m Rupert’s pastor! Rupert published my book!’” Then he tilted back his head and gave one of those big Rick Warren laughs. (Online source)

Notice that in this paragraph Warren discusses the fact that he was 'kind of mentoring' Jack Welch on his Spiritual journey. Welch had even attend a service at Saddleback. Yet, Warren didn't say that he was Welch's pastor. But he did make a rather gleeful point of saying that he was Rupert's pastor.

This will be important to remember when considering the next point in the Saddleback rebuttal.

5. “Pastor in the sense”

The Saddleback rebuttal defines Warren’s pastoral relationship with Murdoch this way:

"Rick Warren is Rupert Murdoch’s pastor in the sense that over the years they have had “numerous spiritual conversations and times of prayer’” (Emphasis mine)

I call this their ‘Pastor in the sense’ defense. (Which, by the way, still has them admitting that Warren is Murdoch's 'Pastor' but they are trying to shade what that means.)

If you read the quote above from the Pastors.com website, you'll notice that the description of Warren's 'spiritual' activities with Murdoch sound identical to the activities engaged in with Jack Welch. But, Rick has never claimed to be Welch's pastor.

The real question that needs to be answered is why would Rick claim to be Murdoch's pastor and not Welch's? Two possible answers are that Warren was 'name dropping' and bragging in a moment of weakness when he said he was Murdoch's pastor or there is a qualitative difference in his 'spiritual' relationship with Murdoch as compared to Welch.

If they were being consistent they'd have to say that Warren was also Welch's 'Pastor in the sense' but they don't.

The 'pastor in the sense' defenses sounds more like an attempt to redefine what the word ‘pastor’ means in order for Warren to be able to still say he is Murdoch’s Pastor without having to follow through on all the duties that go with being someone’s pastor. These would be the ‘less fun’ duties like correcting, rebuking and disciplining.

I’m sorry but Warren can’t have it both ways.

Either Rick is Murdoch’s pastor or he isn’t. If he insists on holding on to this ‘pastor in a sense’ defense then he has the obligation to demonstrate from God’s word that it is even possible to be a ‘pastor in sense’.

They need to show us from the Bible what the different ‘pastoral senses’ are.

They then need to show us Biblically, which ‘senses’ require a pastor to exercise discipline and which ‘senses’ are relieved of that duty.

While I was earning my degree in Pastoral Ministries I was never informed about different Pastoral ‘senses’. I was taught you either are someone’s pastor or you are not their pastor. There were no ‘in between / hybrid’ senses to the pastoral office.

So either Rick Warren IS Murdoch’s Pastor or he ISN’T they need to tell us which it is and stop trying to have it both ways.

6. “Christians showing so little regard for the truth”

One of Rick Warren’s signature traits is his gift for twisting scripture. Rick Warren can seemingly take any passage of scripture and make it say anything that he wants it to say. He is so good at it that I’ve given it a name. I call it making ‘Bible Balloon Animals’. If you’ve read his book “The Purpose Driven Life” you will see that that book is a veritable zoo of ‘Bible Balloon Animals’. Each ‘animal’ began as a scripture passage. It was then ripped from its context and skillfully twisted and shaped into saying something completely different than what the Holy Spirit intended. (Here are links to articles on this topic Resource 1, Resource 2, Resource 3 Resource 4

It appears that Mark Kelly has learned this skill from his master, Rick Warren. In one of the most surreal and ironic passages in the rebuttal Kelly said:

It is regrettable that people who present themselves as Christians would show so little regard for the truth and focus so much time and energy on fomenting strife.

God’s kingdom is not well served by contrived controversy. The world needs to see the power of his love and grace at work in our lives, not “hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, [and] the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group.” (Galatians 5:20 NLT)

In this portion of the rebuttal Kelly is trying to color the bloggers and journalists who have been diligently working to expose the errors of Warren’s teachings and methods as a group of amateur hacks whose stock in trade are lies, distortions, fictions and outrageous accusations. To support his claim Kelly creates his own Bible Balloon Animal.

The verse that Kelly is “supposedly” quoting from is Galatians 5:20 from the New Living Translation (NLT). But this is a deception.

In reality, Mark spliced this verse together using the NLT and the Living Bible (a paraphrase). The end result of this artistic twisting is a Bible Balloon Animal, and a verse that doesn’t exist in anyone’s Bible.

Even if he correctly quoted the verse, it is still ripped from its context and is being misused to support a false teaching that those who work together to expose the errors of teachers like Rick Warren (Mark has not established 'as fact' that their work is fiction) are doing a work that is sinful and wrong. But this passage is not teaching this at all. Let’s read this verse in context. Here is what it says.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (ESV)

This passage, in context, using a good translation is warning about about the works of the sinful flesh. One of these works is dissensions. What is a dissension? A dissension occurs when someone gathers followers around himself and his false teaching rather than around Jesus Christ and sound doctrine.

The bloggers that Kelly attacks are making the claim that Rick Warren is the one who is causing dissension in the Christian church through his Bible Twisting and the innovations that HE introduced in the church.

Those who are taking the time to critique Warren’s teachings and warn people about his Bible Twisting are not fomenting strife. Instead, they are being obedient to God’s word which tells us to:

2 Tim 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

When Rick Warren twists scripture into ‘Bible Balloon Animals’ he is teaching things that are contrary to sound doctrine. The church’s Biblical duty, like it or not, is to rebuke him.

Therefore let me quote Mark Kelly to Mark Kelly as a rebuke against him.

“ It is regrettable that people who present themselves as Christians would show so little regard for the truth” ... and mislead them by mishandling God’s word.

Repent Mark it is a grievous sin that you’ve committed by mishandling God’s word in this manner.

More to come...

Anatomy of Saddleback Spin - Part One

Many times when I tell other Christians about the tactics that Saddleback employs to protect Rick Warren and his image the response I get is utter disbelief. People think I am describing Bill Clinton’s political spin machine rather than a Christian pastor and his extended staff. But I am not.

When evidence appears on the internet of Rick Warren or members of his church saying or doing things that are out of step with the truth or could be damaging to his image these things have a habit of disappearing from the web. A very well documented case of this occurred in November 2006 when Rick Warren travelled to Syria and was reportedly making statements that were favorable to the Syrian government and their policies regarding religious tolerance. Joseph Farah of World Net Daily took issue with what Warren was saying and wrote about it in his column at WND. This prompted Warren to contact Farah via email and claim that “words were being put in his mouth by the Syrian media” and that they twisting what he was saying.

The story probably would have ended there but, while this email exchange was occurring a video surfaced on YouTube of Warren making the the exact types of statements that he was telling Farah were ‘being put in his mouth’.

Farah had caught Warren in a lie.

When Farah confronted Warren with the video, it vanished from the web. Without that evidence it was Farah’s word against Warren’s regarding what was being said in Syria. Thankfully, someone was able to make a copy of the audio from the YouTube video before Warren’s people yanked it off the web. This gave Farah the physical proof that he needed to show the world that Warren was engaging in deception. (The details of the story are well document on the WND website. If you would like to learn more, I recommend clicking here to read Farah's article entitled "Warren continues to deceive")

Warren’s Porn Scandal

The Real Facts of the Case

Fast forward to May 2007, Warren has now come under fire by myself and others because of his claims to being Rupert Murdoch’s pastor and his inaction regarding his pastorly duties to discipline Murdoch for publishing and distributing pornography.

The story first broke as a result of a press release that I sent out through the Christian Newswire on May 4, 2007 (Click Here to Read the Press Release). I followed this press release up with a post at my ExtremeTheology.com blog entitled “Purpose Driven Pornography?”. The purpose of that article was to give more details about facts of the story. This was necessary because of the 400 word limit for all press releases sent through the Chrisitan Newswire.

In that article I detailed Rick Warren’s claims to being Murdoch’s pastor as well as the evidence that Murdoch’s status as a born again Christian was being called into question as a result of the expansion of his porn distribution channels in the UK.

My primary point was that since Warren was on the record claiming to be Murdoch’s pastor, Warren had the Biblical responsibility to step in and discipline Murdoch. What is at stake is the moral authority of the Christian message. As one of my unbelieving employees put it, “If a Born-Again Christian is profiting from the distribution of porn, how can Christians say that people are sinning if they look at porn?”

In my article I NEVER claimed that Murdoch was a member of Saddleback Church. The reason I did not make this claim is because I had called Saddleback church in order to get clarification. When I called, Pastor Warren was out of town but I was able to talk with his administrative assistant. She was very kind and very professional. She explained to me that Rupert Murdoch was not a member of Saddleback church. I told her that was not the issue. The issue was that Rick had claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor. When I asked her for clarification about what Warren meant she encouraged me to email Warren. (This is also documented in my article).

For the Record: Here are the assumptions that I operated from:

1. Rupert Murdoch is not a Member of Saddleback Church

2. Rick Warren is the one claiming to be Murdoch’s Pastor

3. Rick Warren was telling the truth about being Murdoch’s Pastor.

4. Since there is no other definition of Pastor given than the one outlined in the scriptures, Warren was implying the Biblical definition and duties of “pastor”.

5. Under the Biblical standard (not Warren’s personal standard) of church discipline as outlined in 1 Corinthians 5, Rick Warren as the ‘pastor of note’ is obligated to discipline Murdoch for his un-repentance regarding profiting from pornography as demonstrated by the expansion of his pornography holdings.

6. The purpose of Biblical discipline is twofold: 1. For the restoration of the sinner: the goal is for the sinner to repent of their sin and receive Christ’s forgiveness. 2. To prevent the church’s message from falling into disrepute in the world’s eye as a result a blatant sin being committed by someone who is supposed to be a Christian brother.

The radio interviews that I conducted during the first week of the story clearly demonstrate that these were the assumptions I was operating from. I recommend listening to my interview on May 9, 2007 on the The Issues Etc. radio program as proof of my assertions. It is important to note that this interview was conducted one day prior to the release of the World Net Daily story.

Saddleback’s Spin Control and More Vanishing Evidence

Earlier this year, Rick Warren enlisted the services of veteran journalist Mark Kelly to set the record straight any time a damaging story surface on the web. One could argue that Mark Kelly is Rick Warren’s spin doctor. (Who ever heard of a Christian Pastor needing a spin doctor?)

On Friday May 11, 2007 Mark Kelly posted Saddleback’s rebuttal to my calls for Warren to discipline Murdoch. His rebuttal was prompted by the the story that appeared on World Net Daily on May 10, 2007 entitled “Murdoch pastor gets heat for mogul's porn channels”.

Kelly’s rebuttal turned out to be a hit piece. I was full of inaccuracies and very flimsy argumentation that spinned the issue rather than dealt with the issue head on.

Not surprisingly, Kelly’s rebuttal disappeared from the internet almost as quickly as it had been posted.

Saddleback was up to its old tricks. Thankfully, I’ve seen them use this tactic so many times before, that when I first saw Kelly’s rebuttal I decided to take screen shots of it in order to keep it in the public record. This morning I stitched those screen shots together and posted the finished graphic on the internet.
I want everyone to see for themselves what type of tactics Pastor Warren and his proxies employ to defend him.

I want everyone to see the sophistry that Pastor Warren and his people employ to twist the truth and deflect blame and accountability away from this ‘man of God’.

Like the Syria story, the facts of this story are breath-taking.

Click Here to see what Saddleback’s Spin Doctor, Mark Kelly produced in order to defend his boss.

In Part Two of this article I will outline the distortions and sophistry used by Mark Kelly and Warren's Chief of Staff, David Chrzan in Saddleback's short-lived rebuttal.

Purpose-Driven Pornography?

By Chris Rosebrough

When does a pastor become an accomplice to an egregious sin that is being committed by someone under his Pastoral care?

Answer: When the sin is public information and the pastor doesn’t follow through on his Biblical duty to discipline the person committing the sin.

Scripture is crystal clear about the church’s responsibility as it pertains to Christian brothers who are openly and unrepentantly committing egregious sins. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 states:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

According to the scriptures, we’re not even supposed to associate with a person who ‘bears the name of brother’ if that person is guilty of openly and unrepentantly committing such sins a sexual immorality, greed and idolatry. Scripture tells us to ‘purge the evil person from among us’.

Knowing that this is the scriptural standard for church discipline, the question I would like to know the answer to is, “Why hasn’t Rick Warren disciplined media mogul Rupert Murdoch for his proliferation and distribution of pornography?”

It is a well known fact that Rupert Murdoch has been publishing pornography for decades and that in the last year he’s expanded his porn distribution business in Europe.

Please consider this quote from London’s “The Business”

RUPERT Murdoch, the born-again Christian who chairs media giant News Corporation, has been secretly building a stable of wholly-owned pornographic channels for his BSkyB subsidiary. The Business has learnt that BSkyB now owns and operates its own pornographic channels – the 18+ Movies selection – after years of hosting third-party content only. (Online Source)

Please notice that “The Business” is not only telling us that Rupert Murdoch now owns and operates his own pornographic channels but that his actions are discrediting his claims to being a born-again Christian.

What does this have to do with Rick Warren?

Answer: Rick Warren on more than one occasion has openly admitted to being Rupert Murdoch’s pastor.

In the Sept 12, 2005 edition of the New Yorker Rick Warren said:

"I had dinner with Jack Welch last Sunday night," he said. "He came to church, and we had dinner. I've been kind of mentoring him on his spiritual journey. And he said to me, 'Rick, you are the biggest thinker I have ever met in my life. The only other person I know who thinks globally like you is Rupert Murdoch.' And I said, 'That's interesting. I'm Rupert's pastor! Rupert published my book!'" Then he tilted back his head and gave one of those big Rick Warren laughs.(Online Source)

As Murdoch’s pastor, doesn’t Rick Warren have a Biblical duty and obligation to discipline Murdoch for his open, unrepentant and repugnant sin of porn publishing and distribution?

Answer: Of course he does. (Unless the Bible doesn’t apply to Rick Warren). When Rick Warren became Murdoch's Pastor, he took on ALL the responsiblities that go with that office; these include discipleship, spiritual care, prayer, AND discipline.

Now, some of Warren's defenders may try to deflect blame away from Pastor Rick by giving him the benefit of the doubt and believing that Warren wasn’t aware of Rupert Murdoch’s porn empire. However, we know that is not the case because of an interview that Rick Warren did with Gwendolyn Driscoll of the Orange County Register in November of 2006. Here is what that article said:

Warren says he is pastor to Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. subsidiary publishes "The Purpose-Driven Life" but also publishes tabloid newspapers featuring topless women.

"I don't have to agree with 100 percent of what another person does in order to work with them on the 20 percent that we do agree on," Warren says.

That pragmatic attitude has paid off. Murdoch was among the first to support the PEACE plan, donating $2 million.(Online Source)

Notice that Driscoll pointed out the obvious contradiction that exists between Warren’s claim to being Murdoch’s pastor and the fact that Murdoch “publishes tabloid newspapers featuring topless women”.

But also notice that Rick’s answer completely dodges the REAL issue and does NOT address the contradiction. Warren said:

“I don't have to agree with 100 percent of what another person does in order to work with them on the 20 percent that we do agree on.”

But, “Working with a person” is a completely different issue than “pastoring a person”.

All of us work with people who have different religious beliefs than we do or have different moral values than we have. That is just part of the reality of the ‘working world’. But when it comes to our pastors we expect to share the same values and same morals that they do. In fact, I can’t imagine going to a church where I only shared 20 percent of the same beliefs as my pastor. One could easlily argue that if you disagreed with 80% of your pastor's beliefs you probably don't even share the same religion.

The fact remains, and still needs to be addressed that if Rick Warren is Murdoch’s pastor, why has he not done his Biblical duty and disciplined Murdoch for being one of the world's leading distributors of pornography?

Is it because Murdoch published "The Purpose Driven Life"?

Is it because Murdoch will be publishing Warren's newest book later this year?

Is it because Murdoch contributed $2 million dollars to Warren’s Global PEACE plan?

Or is it some other reason?

Either way, I think it is time for Christians to insist that Warren do his Biblical duty as Murdoch’s pastor and call him to repentance and insist that he dismantle his porn empire. If Murdoch refuses to repent then he should be put out of the church.

If Warren refuses to do his biblical duty then the church should discipline Warren for his role in allowing Murdoch to continue 'un-checked' in this monstrous sin.

---

When I attempted to contact Rick Warren to get clarification on this issue I was told by Warren's assitant that "Rupert Murdoch is not a member of Saddleback Church." I kindly reminded her that no one was saying that Murdoch attended Saddleback, but that Rick was claiming to be Murdoch's pastor. She said she was unable to comment any further on the matter and asked me to send Rick an email. She also said that I'd hear back from Rick in the next 2 weeks.

---

Click Here to read the press release that I sent out calling on Rick Warren to discipline Rupert Murdoch.

Click Here to listen to my interview on the Cross Talk Radio Program on this issue.

Click Here to read Rick Warren's own standards regarding Church Discipline.

Click Here for a pastor's perspective on this issue.

---

Law & Gospel: Law

By Steven Newell

This is the second of a four part series on Law and Gospel that as originally posted on post-emergent.com on May 2, 2006.

For most Christians, the Law is the Ten Commandments while others consider the Law to be the entire Mosaic Law. The Law is what God demands for us to do and not do. We see the Law through both the Old and New Testaments. As God gave the Law through Moses, Christ gave us the Law in the four Gospels.

Law: Implicit and Explicit

The Law comes in to us in two forms: implicit and explicit. Another way to think about the Law is that we have revealed law (what is in the scripture) and nature law (what we see in nature). We are subject to both types.

Explicit, or revealed law, is what most Christians are aware of. We can find this starting in Genesis 3 where God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam ate, he sinned. Through both the Old and New Testament, God has revealed His Law through direct revelation so that we might know what God demands and expects. Through Moses, God gave us the Ten Commandments as well as all of Mosaic Law. Christ is also the Law Giver. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that our thoughts, not just our actions, are subject to the Law. If I hate someone, it is the same a murdering them (Matthew 5:21-22). 

The Implicit, or natural law, is what God has revealed, not through His word to us, but by nature. The natural law that I refer to is not the same as “Natural Law” that many in the legal and political areas refer to.  St. Paul referred to this type of law in Romans 1:20 

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

 This type of God’s law is seen in three stories found in Genesis. Cain knew that killing his Abel was wrong when God confronted him (Genesis 4). Prior to the great flood, man’s wickedness was noted as the cause of God’s judgment (Genesis 6 and 7). Finally, Joseph knew that adultery was wrong when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce him (Genesis 39). In each story, God’s law was evident even though God had not pronounced His Law to man. This law is also evident in many societies, throughout history, were actions such as murder, stealing and lying are considered crimes.

 Law: It’s Purpose

The chief purpose of the Law is to show us God’s perfect standard and our complete failure to obey it perfectly. No one is made righteous before a Holy God by trying to fulfill all of the requirements of the Law. In Romans 3:10-18, St. Paul quotes various Psalms passages to support the point that there is no one who is righteous before God. When we look to the Law to validate our righteousness, we only find ourselves becoming conscious of sin. Why is that? God demands perfect obedience of the Law and when we look at ourselves, we realize how sinful we really are.

God does not grade on the curve or give partial credit. We see that in Joshua 1:8 where God demands that Joshua must carefully to everything that is in the “Book of the Law” in order to have success and prosperity. Joshua’s success is not due to Joshua’ obedience of the law, rather to God’s grace, despite Joshua’s sin. Jesus commands us to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

 The priest Isaiah saw “the Lord seated on a throne”, his reaction as to cry “Woe to me!” and “For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips”. It was God’s action of mercy that resulted in Isaiah’s sin being atoned for. (Isaiah 6). When we begin to understand how holy God is and how sinful we are, our reaction will be like that of Isaiah. It’s the Law that shows us how great of divide there is between God and us.

In St. John’s first Epistle, he wrote that if we say that we deny we have sinned, we deny the truth and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8-10). Why do we sin?  St. John answers this question by saying anyone who breaks the law is sinning and sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4)

Law: The Solution

Since we are all sinners and we cannot perfectly keep the Law of God, what do we do? There is nothing that we can do. At this point, we can only be like the tax collector in Jesus’ parable where we also cry “God, have mercy on me, a sinner”. This is the sinner’s prayer that all should pray, both Christian and non-Christians.

Even before our cry for mercy, God showed us his mercy in Christ. In the next section, the Gospel will show how through Christ, God has fulfilled the Law so that we may find life.