Thank You to Rick Warren and Saddleback

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with Rick Warren. This meeting was made possible by the generosity of Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. I want to personally thank Rick Warren for the invitation and his generosity with his time and resources. He was truly a gracious host.

Many of the readers of this blog would like details regarding the meeting. Here is what I would like to say on the matter...the meeting with Rick Warren lasted for a little over an hour and was a face to face with myself and Bob DeWaay of Critical Issues Commentary. The tone of the meeting was wonderful. Warren was genuinely interested in getting to know us and he was receptive in hearing both Bob's and I's concerns and critiques of his doctrine and practices. Never once did the conversation turn hostile or angry and Warren was more than willing to answer and address our toughest questions and most serious concerns. Both Bob and myself focused our comments on the Gospel and were encouraged by Warren's receptiveness to both listen to and interact with our concerns.

Neither Bob nor myself were required to sign a non-disclosure and we are being provided with a recording of the conversation. However, I have NO intention of making that recording available to the public because I do not believe that to be appropriate nor would it be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting or the love of Christ.

Over the next week or so, I will be writing a Biblical critique of some of the content of the Purpose-Driven conference. The purpose of this critique is to continue a Biblically grounded dialogue so that we all may wrestle with and engage the Word of God in order that errors within the Body of Christ may be corrected and the good news that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins may be proclaimed so that we all may be called to a life of repentance AND the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:44-47).

Grace and Peace to you all in Jesus Christ,

Chris Rosebrough

Comments

[Susan]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure if you are aware of this so I would like to pass this on for your information:

Pastor Warren has been a reader of Modern Reformation Magazine produced by Michael Horton, host of the White Horse Inn program. Pastor Horton should be able to confirm this since I heard it from his lips more than once on the White Horse Inn and/or seminars where he has spoken.

I find it interesting that Rick Warren is very familiar with reformation theology. I also find it interesting that one of his associates signed the petition for Issues Etc. Pastor Warren's well-known warmth and ability to charm do not carry much weight with me because I know he is not uninformed or ignorant of the choices he has made.

[Susan]

Phooey. I forgot to finish a sentence:

Almost form it's inception, Pastor Warren has been a reader of Modern Reformation Magazine produced by Michael Horton, host of the White Horse Inn program.

That would give Pastor Warren over 10 years to absorb some understanding of the difference between reformation theology and his own.

I do not know how many years, Pastor Warren's associate was a listener of Issues. Etc. and I cannot remember his comment well enough to try to paraphrase it here, but I had the impression that he had been listening for a long time.

All in all, I find both of these pieces of information disturbing given the course they have chosen to follow.

[Derek Schroeder]

Be careful Chris. He has charmed and flattered others in the past who opposed him. Some of them only realized much later that they had been deceived.

For it is written, "There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself. Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue. Psalm 5:9

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. Romans 16:17-18

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 5:6

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.} "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Matthew 7:15-23

In Christ,
Derek

[Janky-o]

Graciousness is certainly a virtue, both in yourself and in those with whom you talked. But like the others have commented, I was thinking to myself "don't go to the dark side!"

Keep faithful to what is true.

[Richard Abanes]

Derek: Be careful Chris. He has charmed and flattered others in the past who opposed him.

RA: My goodness, you people act as if he is some character in a scifi original picture with magical powers from the pit of hell. Ooooh, be careful Christ, he'll appear as an Angel of Light and mesmerize you with his powers.

If Chris needs to be careful of anything, it's taking the chance of being turned on if he dares say anything positive about Warren or doesn't keep up attacking him like others. The "Dark Side"? This is incredible. Yes, be careful Chris, Sith Warren may be using the Jedi mind trick on you. LoL.

[paula]

Chris, I can respect your desire to keep the recording private. However why was it made? As a public record I would assume.

I am not surprised he was gracious. I only hoped and prayed that his niceness would not be a distraction from the real issue.

Susan I agree with your comments. Rick Warren is not ignorant or at least cannot claim to be ignorant of the truth.

[Susan R]

That's certainly one way of looking at it. But it's not the most charitable way. In fact, kinda sophomoric, and more.
Confessional Lutherans have valid concerns, not only about Purpose-Driven theology, but about its reach (which some call success).
We have a greater concern for the many being wooed away from the confessions. To us, they indeed choose a darker, more law-laden form.
How concerned would you be, having members of your church dropping out to join a more confessional form of Christianity? What cautions would you give them about making that choice?
Or do you not think it matters where one is theologically?

[Susan R]

Above comment by Susan R is addressed to Mr. Richard Abanes.

[Susan]

P.S. If my information is correct, Pastor Warren's associate's name is Richard Abanes and he is #2965 on the Issues Etc. petition.

[paula]

Mr Dreamgirl, don't you ever get tired of coming here to bash us?

[Richard Abanes]

Susan,

Which comments. Can you be more specific. In these instances, there is usually too much room for misunderstanding to guess.

[Rick Frueh]

"How concerned would you be, having members of your church dropping out to join a more confessional form of Christianity? What cautions would you give them about making that choice?"

I would tell them they are making a big mistake.

[paula]

Susan... two words keep floating around in my head for some reason. Delphi and Diaprax.

[Richard Abanes]

Susan,

Which comments. Can you be more specific. In these instances, there is usually too much room for misunderstanding to guess.

[Paula]

Rick so you are saying it is a mistake to leave a church to join a more confessional one? Are you judging the confessional churches then as not being true churches? I thought we were all blessed subtractions?

[paula]

Mr Abanes, the ABOVE comment. Right ABOVE where she said ABOVE. It's not that hard to figure out.

[Susan]

Richard,
There are Susan and Susan R. commenting here. Which one are you addressing?

[Richard Abanes]

Paula,

I wasn't speaking to you. Moreover, I am utterly baffled at why my simple request for clarification would be met with such a sharp comment by you. Goodness. How can anyoen even begin to communicate when it starts off like that? I mean can you imagine the Paula Revised version: "Mr. Nicodemus, I said born again. As in born again like I just said born again. It's not that hard to figure out" (John 3:5-7).

My question is to Susan R. - her post contains not only comments, but questions. So, I'd like to know precisely what I am supposed to respond to.

RAbanes

[Susan]

Richard,
Sorry I was slow on the uptake about your question and who you were speaking to. In the 1st and 2nd post on this thread, I referred to you as Pastor Warren's associate because I could not remember your name at the time and the comment I referred to was the one you posted as #2965 on the Issues Etc. petition.

[Susan]

Dag-nab-it, I posted prior to your answer Richard.

May I suggest that everyone calm down, including you Richard. You comments beg for sharp answers.

[Richard Abanes]

Okay, let's back up. Who asking what? LoL.

This would be a lot easier if we were all just sitting around a table in a Starbuck's filling our tummy-tanks with a Vente Kona + an Espresso shot, complimented by Carmel syrup.

Yes, I am the one who signed the petition to get Todd Wilken back on the air. Despite his criticisms of Rick Warren, I am sickened that he was taken off the air. I consider him a friend, and I think he respects me as well.

He is a Lutheran I am not. I don't care. He loves Jesus and preaches the gospel and I do, too.

[Susan]

Richard,
I had no questions. My posts were supposed to be purely FYI and observational for anyone interested.

As for preaching the gospel. That is where the difference comes in. Since Todd is your friend, I would suggest that you discuss it with him. He would be able to speak about it with much greater knowledge and clarity than I could.

We also believe that deeds flow from creeds and reject "Deeds not creeds" - As you can see there are a number of differences. Again, please speak with Todd. He is a good man and I think you will get the greatest clarity from him.

[Richard Abanes]

S: As for preaching the gospel. . . . That is where the difference comes in. He would be able to speak about it with much greater knowledge and clarity than I could.

RA: The Gospel is the Gospel. There is only ONE Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's finished work on the cross. There's not much that needs explaining beyond 1 Cor. 3:3-5.

_______
S: We also believe that deeds flow from creeds and reject "Deeds not creeds"

RA: What you're rejecting is not what Rick Warren teaches or believes. I know the phrase you're referring to and it's a bit shocking to me that so many people cannot (or perhaps will not) accept what is actually being said in this now-INFAMOUS statement by Warren.

The comment has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion. It is directly related to Warren’s well-known stand against sectarianism/denominationalism within the body of Christ (that whole I am of Paul, I am of Luther, I am of Calvin thing). This has NOTHING to do with the creeds of Christendom that bind us in unity via the essentials of the faith.

Nowhere has Warren ever said deeds don't flow from creeds. Nowhere has he said creeds don't matter. Nowhere has he said any of the things attributed to him from this remark. I would hope that you'd take another look at what he CLEARLY meant without it being twisted into unrecognizable form: See
Rick Warren's Second Reformation

KEY WORDS = context and intent

R. Abanes

[Susan R]

Susan R here.
My prior post was an objection to the tone Mr. Richard Abanes took at 1:28 pm with Derek. The tone lacked grace, was sophomoric, and really downright childish in its lack of respect for Derek's concerns.
Mr. Abanes surely knows our concerns about the theology and the reach of purpose-drive, and I wondered did he not think they were valid concerns, or is theology of so little importance to him? Is it all just a matter not only of choice, but of who wins? And then, what constitutes winning to Mr. Abanes? Being able to pick off confessionals in childish mockery?
I digress. What I wondered was, would it not matter to Mr.Abanes if members of his church were being peeled away by the virtues of the confessions, and if they subsequently gave up their support for purpose-driven thought? Or, like I said, does theology not matter? Is one as good as another to him, or one better because of its mass appeal and marketability, over and above its respect for scripture?
Hope that ends the hilarious confusion I caused all y'all.
And, again: I am Susan R. Not just Susan.
And hi, Susan. Nice moniker ya got there.

[Susan]

RA wrote: "The Gospel is the Gospel. There is only ONE Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's finished work on the cross. There's not much that needs explaining beyond 1 Cor. 3:3-5"

This is why I suggested that you speak with Todd. You do not understand our point of why we disagree. If you do not understand why we disagree, then it is difficult to dialogue - especially via this blog comment section.

RA wrote:"KEY WORDS = context and intent"

Yes, context is very important.
Intent is a moot point. Wrong is wrong whether it is my intent or not.

Lastly, I've read some of Warren's writings and your link. I do heartily reject what Warren teaches and I believe that "deeds not creeds" is a fair summation of his overall teachings. From a theological perspective, I believe that Warren's beliefs, interpretations of scripture, employing scripture out-of-context, view of ecumenism, lack of doctrinal integrity. lack of systematics, lack of clarity in the doctrine of Christ, and etc. more than make a muddled mess. I reject his teachings as impoverished and misguided at best.

Again, I suggest that you call Todd and talk with him. This comment thread makes it impossible to discuss the the points that need to be addressed.

[Tim Wirth]

Richard Abanes finally states something with a ring of truth to it.

"RA: My goodness, you people act as if he is some character in a scifi original picture with magical powers from the pit of hell. Ooooh, be careful Christ, he'll appear as an Angel of Light and mesmerize you with his powers."
The Bible adds to that in giving a good description about Warren and types like Rick in Danial 8:23-24
"23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people."
Think of how Rick Warrens methodology has destroyed and ruined many churches.

Chris even though I do appreciate you going into the lions den with Pastor Dewaay why would you not make everything public remenber Jesus did nothing in secret.
Now Im sure Rick Warren does many things in secret but again jesus Himself did not.
Why would you not make everything public?
Warren for a short time had the same mesmerizing affect on Dave Hunt a couple years ago.
Though Dave wanted to give Warren the benefit of the doubt and give Warren a chance to repent.
Which Rick has not.
So Dave's attitude toward purpose driven has not changed.
Now I know Abanes will come back and say "Repent of what"? But Rick Warrens unbiblical methods and teachings are to numerous to list anymore. But its interesting that Warren now doesnt even hold back about expressing his unbiblical views. (Such as the U Tube video by Todd Friel making its rounds.
Well Chris I got to give you credit I guess for going, my prayer is that it wont damage your ministry long term.
I love you in the Lord brother.
Sincerely
Tim Wirth

[Richard Abanes]

Susan R.: My prior post was an objection to the tone Mr. Richard Abanes took at 1:28 pm with Derek. The tone lacked grace, was sophomoric, and really downright childish in its lack of respect for Derek's concerns.

RA: You know, Susan, it just gets a little confusing. People can use the harshest, cruelest, sharpest, nastiest, most mean-spirited tone when speaking about Warren (or me, for that matter), but then when I seek to use just a touch of sarcasm, or biting humor and make a Star Wars reference (in line with the first reference to the Dark side, BTW), then it is I who am suddenly lacking in grace. Interesting, but imho, a bit hypocritical. I've never even approached within a hundred miles the lack of grace "tone" posted by the many critics of Rick Warren and other church leaders (and yes, I am referring to several posters here at this blog).

But if you feel I was so terribly lacking in grace, then fine. I apologize. I would only ask that you be equally as critical/exacting and concerned about grace in tone when it comes to those who attack me, Rick Warren, and others.

________
Susan R.: Abanes surely knows our concerns about the theology and the reach of purpose-drive, and I wondered did he not think they were valid concerns, or is theology of so little importance to him?

RA: Right. Theology is really of little importance to me. Okay. Don't you think that's stretching it a bit? My issue with so many of Warren's critics is not their concern with theology, but their concern with condemning, attacking, and criticizing those things that are not connected to theology at all! But they are artificially connecting them to theology.

_______
Susan R.: Is it all just a matter not only of choice, but of who wins? And then, what constitutes winning to Mr. Abanes? Being able to pick off confessionals in childish mockery?

RA: Maybe that's the problem. I'm not trying to "win" anything. are you? And I'm not trying to pick off anyone, least of all confessionals. One of my dearest and closest friends in all the world is a Lutheran! She has been my mentor, fellow apologist, counselor, supporter, and sounding board for my thoughts for years! So, let's not talk about me wanting to pick off confessionals. And she's not only a Lutheran, but is also a respected apologist, and personal friend of Todd Wilken's as well -- AND of Chris Rosebrough.

________
Susan R.: I digress. What I wondered was, would it not matter to Mr.Abanes if members of his church were being peeled away by the virtues of the confessions, and if they subsequently gave up their support for purpose-driven thought?

RA: If they were being spiritually more fed more fully elsewhere, were growing deeper in Christ elsewhere, were experiencing a vibrant relationship with the Lord more completely elsewhere, believed that the liturgy of church services/worship were more biblical and brought them closer to God elsewhere - than I would be gloriously ecstatic that they had found that somewhere other than Saddleback!! Clear enough? Whether it would be some LCMS congregation or some Reformed Church (e.g., worshiping next to the likes of R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or Kim Riddlebarger).

I would say, "Go! Be free. Grow in Christ. Take the road that Jesus is leading you to take in him. You are His servant! Let us serve the Lord wherever he places us. The fields are white with harvest!"

WE ARE AL ONE BODY! THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. ONE LORD. ON SAVIOR. ON GOD.

________
Susan R.: Or, like I said, does theology not matter? Is one as good as another to him, or one better because of its mass appeal and marketability, over and above its respect for scripture?
Hope that ends the hilarious confusion I caused all y'all.

RA: Yes. Theology matters. Last I checked, Lutherans, Reformed, and Southern Baptists all worshiped the one, eternal, triune God, who was fully manifested in the man Christ Jesus, the Beginning and the End, the king of Kings and Lord of Lords, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered, died, and was buried, but rose again, according to the scriptures, and who ascended into heaven where he sits at the right hand of the father, from whence he will physically come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Yes, theology is important. What's NOT important, and what is tragic, is dividing the body of Christ over those things that are not theology - but man-made dogmas, traditions, and opinions.

R. Abanes

[Richard Abanes]

SUSAN R: Yes, context is very important.
RA: Well, that's a start.
___________
SUSAN R: Intent is a moot point. Wrong is wrong whether it is my intent or not.
RA: Oh, gracious. No wonder we've had so many wars in the history of humanity. I guess there is no need for ambassadors, interpretors who know what their doing, or negotiators. Well done, Susan. Intent is a moot point? Intentions - meaning what a person intends to say - is hardly moot. I can't count how many misunderstandings and arguments have happened in my own life just because I either misunderstood someone else's intentions, or they misunderstood mine. Wow.

___________
SUSAN R: Lastly, I've read some of Warren's writings and your link. I do heartily reject what Warren teaches and I believe that "deeds not creeds" is a fair summation of his overall teachings.
RA: You SHOULD understand what he means by that phrase. But apparently, you do not. He is not seeking to do away with, or ignore, the content of he creeds. But he's trying o do in his reformation has to do with the deeds that are expressions of those creeds (or our faith). You really don't/can't see that?

___________
SUSAN R: From a theological perspective, I believe that Warren's beliefs, interpretations of scripture, employing scripture out-of-context, view of ecumenism, lack of doctrinal integrity. lack of systematics, lack of clarity in the doctrine of Christ, and etc. more than make a muddled mess. I reject his teachings as impoverished and misguided at best.
RA: That's a big bag of accusations. The worst, however, is this one: "lack of clarity in the doctrine of Christ." He's perfectly clear on the doctrine of Christ - certainly clear enough for me to have witnessed thousands of people come into a deep and abiding faith in God's Son: The way, the truth, and the life, who is the ONLY way of salvation (Jn. 14:6).

If you're expecting him to teach a seminary class every Sunday, or give systematic theology lecture every time he has a few minutes to answer a question on a live interview, well, then, forget it.

[Richard Abanes]

TIM WIRTH: Warren for a short time had the same mesmerizing affect on Dave Hunt a couple years ago. Though Dave wanted to give Warren the benefit of the doubt and give Warren a chance to repent.

RA: Sigh. Another .... untruth. Sorry, Tim. But you just can't stop yourself, I see. Sad. So sad. I was there. I know what Dave Hunt said. And how he acted. And what he revealed about what was going on at his ministry. My account online is the true account of what happened. I have no idea where you get your spin.

______
TIM: Well Chris I got to give you credit I guess for going, my prayer is that it wont damage your ministry long term.

RA: Chris R. - see? I warned you. It's already starting. You either toe the line, or you'll get turned on by the pack. Here are your choices - truth, or untruth. Dave Hunt chose unwisely and I believe he wills suffer lose. I hope and pray differently for you.

Look at what is happening already - just because you have not instantly posted a resoundingly harsh analysis of your meeting with Rick in a timely manner (as measured by the Watchmen). Go to the Lord, Chris. Go to the Lord.

[S.S]

Are you and Pastor DeWaay ambassadors to God's elect from Rick Warren? Will you reconcile Christ's church to this deciever? Have you gone out from among us?

[Susans]

Richard,

it would be fitting if you would go back and re-read what I wrote and how you responded. Sarcasm in a discussion does not benefit anyone involved.

I noted that you have not heard me when I say that you do not understand the points of disagreement. My overall impression from your response to my comments is again that you do not understand the points of disagreement. if you do not understand the points of a disagreement then it makes it near impossible to debate it.

I also noted that the few points I did express were twisted by sarcastic comebacks. That does not constitute a debate but usually expresses either a lack of skill and/or lack of concrete evidence by the debater who employs such tactics.

Yes, I have made serious criticisms of Warrens' teachings, but notice that I did not attack his person nor his intentions nor was I sarcastic. I stated what I believe to be true based on solid theological training and I stand by my assessment.

Lastly, please note that I have tried to tell you that this comment thread is not designed for addressing these kinds of points and please hear me when I say I will not respond to any more sarcastic responses.

BTW: I am Susan not Susan R :)

[Susan R]

Mr. Abanes:
I see that the tone you used earlier is your tone of choice. How unfortunate.
We do not agree, sir. First and foremost, we do not agree on doctrine. You call it manmade, and you calim it divides.
If doctrine divides, then so be it. Wheat and chaff have nothing in common. Truth and falsehood are meant to be divided.
We cannot be un-divided, as long as we decide for ourselves what truth is, what the scriptures say, who Christ is, what the gospel is.
We're not here to unite for the sake of unity, but for the sake of Christ.
The only thing served by false unity is us and our desires, whether for fortune, fame, followers, power--that's all that can be gained by ignoring what's truth for the sake of unity.
Please don't put that 'disagreement' on me, or on Lutherans, or on any confession finding dogma and doctrine through the scriptures, not his opinion. That's a trick I'm tired of, that I've seen enough of, that Lutherans have to stand up to and speak out against. We are not the dividers; we just live with the division, as long as we're divided along the lines of truth.
Our Lord never promised us unity in this life. He Himself is the author of division, setting us one against the other, but for His sake, and not for the sake of chaos.

[Jason]

Hmm. Chris, you have the right to post or not post whatever you wish, but I'd like more clarification on what you said about *why* you would not be posting anything from the recording. Particularly, what "in keeping with the spirit of the meeting" means. Because based on the daily blogging you did, it sounds as if the conference was primarily focussed on practice (application, relationship, commitment, etc.). In contrast, Bob's and your concerns are largely more theological; it seems that ship has sailed from Saddleback, and any discussion with Dr. Warren on such issues, no matter how amicable, could not have a common "spirit" (i.e. motivation and agenda).

Also, you and others have written in the past how the PD "transitioning" model relies on a private co-opting of the church leaders in the early stages. In fact, I'd imagine many who read your work have been hurt by churches following such an approach. Frankly, there will be an extreme sensitivity to anything that seems to lack transparency; your comments could be taken that way. I think *that*, more than anything else, is what is driving the concern in some of the comments.

I understand it's early, and it will take time to write a more thorough response and critique of what you saw and heard, both in the conference and in your meeting. I hope further posts will produce more clarity in this regard.

Finally, Mr. Abanes, I really don't see the point of your last few posts. At best, you come across as childish as those you are critiquing. At worst, you sound condescendingly gloating; you have no grounds for such behavior factually or spiritually, IMO.

[Tim Wirth]

Richard who should believe anything you say or write when you stated here on another website-

"The results are in - out of the many critics invited (I have the list) - not a SINGLE person accepted except for Chris Rosebrough of Extremetheology blog.

So, the critics have shown their true motives - not reconciliation, not face-to-face correction, not personal confrontation, but attacks from behind the safety of computer screens, using digital assaults that can reach out far and wide, but without any accountability - without the courage to actually speak with someone in person.

As for Chris Rosebrough, the guy has insulted me, angered me, frustrated me, and failed in my book when it comes to apologetics and dealing with Rick Warren — BUT, at least he had the courage to take that invitation and would have been there.

Sadly, because no one responded, the golden opportunity has been canceled.

RAbanes"
end quote source http://christianresearchnetwork.info/submissions-2/#comment-59538

Your first lie is that Chris was the only one who replied.
Bob Dewaay went as well.
Question though-Did Saddleback pay for both Chris way there as well as Pastor Dewaay's way there?
You also stated that the meeting was cancelled.
That is obviously a lie as well since Chris has stated here that the meeting did take place. And I have indeed heard through another source that both Chris and Pastor Dewaay was allowed around a hour or so with Rick Warren as well as some others from Warrens camp were there.

Chris brother I love you in the Lord and I would heartily encourage both you and Pastor Dewaay to go public with your meeting with Rick Warren.
You stated in your above post
"Warren was more than willing to answer and address our toughest questions and most serious concerns."
Dont you think this is serious information to share with the Body of Christ?
Both you and Pastor Dewaay have been out spoken critic's of Rick Warren and his unbiblical methods.
Since again you stated.
"Warren was more than willing to answer and address our toughest questions and most serious concerns."
I would ask what were those questions and how did Rick Warren answer them?
Jesus never did anything in secret.
I would encourage you to be public with your information because this effects the entire Body of Christ.
Not just you and Pastor Dewaay and what you think about Rick Warren.
Sincerely in Christ
Tim Wirth

[Paula]

it begs for sharp comment because your silliness and sycophantism for Warren is so well known.

And because you showed up and blasted everyone who DID NOT attend as being gutless compared to Bob and Chris. You show up and blast away at us, and then wonder why anyone has a sharp comment for you. Amazing.

As far as the 'gutless' who declined:
I see good reasons both for accepting the invitation and for declining.

same principle in Prov 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Either option has pros and cons. We ALL know that people, even our trusted friends like Chris and Bob, are all prone to deception, which is why we are on edge waiting for a report to see what happened, ESPECIALLY behind closed doors. We want to know if anyone spoke for the thousands upon thousands of disenfranchised believers who have been abused, spiritually starved, and ostracized in the name of Warren and his Purpose. It disturbs me that we are being asked to 'just trust' the leadership here on what happened behind closed doors on an issue that involves us all, and which is not a Matthew 18 issue!

Sure a gag order was not issued, but did Chris volunteer to comply with one anyway? I don't think this is an issue for silence.

Anyway, I've been let down a bunch of times by pastors, so I'm gearing up for it again. I know it's probably a bad attitude, but after enough cases of this kind of behavior on the part of once-trusted leadership, it shouldn't be expected.

[paula]

er rather "it shouldn't be unexpected."

[Tim Wirth]

And for those who may think I am harsh with Richard Abanes well Im not sure how else to deal with someone who spins so much untruth on the internet.
I did want to answer Richards question on where I get my supposed spin on Dave Hunt from.
I actually received a reply from a brother in the Lord of mine Ed Newby who is Dave Hunts editor. Thats the source of my information.
Here is what Ed had to say
"Hello
Abanes is recycling old stories and adding some new spin on the same. Dave was excited that Rick would take a copy of Judgment day and present it to President Bush. Dave's heart is such that he is willing to give individuals the benefit of a doubt and for several months would write Rick hoping that he could help him to fully consider what he was doing. As time went on, however, it became very clear that Rick had set his course. It is also instructive that he continued to offer critiques in the newsletter of Rick's statements.

Dave has "changed his tune" regarding Rick Warren in that he now believes that he is unlikely to repent of his present course. Some tend to present Dave as an implacable critic. To the contrary I have seen him near tears as he considers the latest "news" concerning a minister or ministry." end quote

Again Chris the fact that Rick Warren did answer hard questions from you and Pastor Dewaay is great.
Again though.
What were the questions?
And what did Rick warren said in responce?
Biblically this should be public information because again Jesus never did anything in secret.
And if Rick has changed his tune on concerns that the Body of Christ has had about his unbiblical teachings it would be great to know.
Such as the recent Rick Warren Todd Friel U Tube video-I dont see Richard touching that one with a ten foot pole.
Again I say this with all respect Chris
Sincerely in Christ
Tim Wirth

[Richard Abanes]

SUSAN R.: I also noted that the few points I did express were twisted by sarcastic comebacks. That does not constitute a debate but usually expresses either a lack of skill and/or lack of concrete evidence by the debater who employs such tactics.

RA: Wait wait wait wait. This is getting all too messy. This is not at all clear on a number of levels. Where was I being sarcastic? Obviously, we are both talking past each other for some strange reason. Maybe this is just impossible online. So, for now, I'm just going to back out and say, I take back everything I've said and we can start from square one.

_________
SUSAN R.: I see that the tone you used earlier is your tone of choice. How unfortunate.

RA: Again, I am totally at a loss here. We must have diametrically opposed personalities or something. I haev no idea what the problem might be. So, whatever, this is not going to work, it seems.

________
SUSAN R.: We do not agree, sir.

RA: Now that sound a little sharp, for sure.

________
SUSAN R: If doctrine divides, then so be it. Wheat and chaff have nothing in common. Truth and falsehood are meant to be divided.

RA: IS anyone outside of Lutheranism saved or not? Simple question. I am focusing on salvific issues - ONLY. Salvific issues ONLY. I outlined in my post essential doctrines of the faith as outlined in several creeds. I thought you'd be pleased that I referred to statements reminiscent of creedal confessions.

________
SUSAN R.: We're not here to unite for the sake of unity, but for the sake of Christ.

RA: Again - we are talking PAST each other. What the world do YOU think I'm talking about??? It's as if you have these preconceived ideas about what I believe or what i am going to say even before I say it. I have no idea what you're talking about.

________
SUSAN R.: The only thing served by false unity is us and our desires, whether for fortune, fame, followers, power--that's all that can be gained by ignoring what's truth for the sake of unity.

RA: Uhhh... yeah, I know. I agree. See, this shows me we are simply NOT communicating. I confess, I have no idea how to resolve this apparent inability we have to hear each other.

[Paula]

"RA: Sigh. Another .... untruth. Sorry, Tim. But you just can't stop yourself, I see. Sad. So sad. I was there. I know what Dave Hunt said. And how he acted. And what he revealed about what was going on at his ministry. My account online is the true account of what happened. I have no idea where you get your spin."

Hmm. Maybe there should have been a recording that was made PUBLIC.

[Paula]

RA: Uhhh... yeah, I know. I agree. See, this shows me we are simply NOT communicating. I confess, I have no idea how to resolve this apparent inability we have to hear each other.

Maybe if you started speaking Biblically, and stopped defending false teachers like Rick Warren, that would help.

[Richard Abanes]

Jason: At worst, you sound condescendingly gloating; you have no grounds for such behavior factually or spiritually, IMO.

RA:

1. I am not gloating in the least. TBH, I'm actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the "Let's all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it" bandwagon.

2. You're entitled to your opinion. It is not shared by many, many people.

RAbanes

[Richard Abanes]

Jason: At worst, you sound condescendingly gloating; you have no grounds for such behavior factually or spiritually, IMO.

RA:

1. I am not gloating in the least. TBH, I'm actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the "Let's all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it" bandwagon.

2. You're entitled to your opinion. It is not shared by many, many people.

RAbanes

[Richard Abanes]

Jason: At worst, you sound condescendingly gloating; you have no grounds for such behavior factually or spiritually, IMO.

RA:

1. I am not gloating in the least. TBH, I'm actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the "Let's all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it" bandwagon.

2. You're entitled to your opinion. It is not shared by many, many people.

RAbanes

[paula]

That does not constitute a debate but usually expresses either a lack of skill and/or lack of concrete evidence by the debater who employs such tactics.

In my case it's complete exasperation. (with people who defend false teachers)

Hey did someone on this thread say only Lutherans were saved? I have to wonder where he pulled that one from.

[paula]

I'm actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the "Let's all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it" bandwagon.

Oh that's so altruistic of you.

I'm far more concerned by what will happen to him spiritually if he gets beguiled by Rick Warren.

Suppose a man loves a woman who has been abused by her father (or whoever) growing up. And suppose you do something stupid which triggers those memories of her father's abuse and provokes an angry or hurt and fearful reaction from her. Do you REALLY have more concern for the man in that situation? Or do you have compassion for the woman?

[Richard Abanes]

TIM: Your first lie is that Chris was the only one who replied.
RA: LoL. You are the LAST person to correct somebody else about lying. Now, you just add hypocrisy to your list of sins. The fact is, that when I posted that post, the final tally given to me when I asked was Chris. So, my dear friend, Tim, that would not be a lie, that would be the truth. If I would have learned about Bob's attendance later, then STILL said it was only Chris, then THAT would be a lie. But it doesn't surprise me that you do not seem to know what a lie is.

_______
TIM: Did Saddleback pay for both Chris way there as well as Pastor Dewaay's way there?
RA: I do not know. I think so. I'd have to look back on the list I requested. Ask Bob.

_______
TIM: You also stated that the meeting was cancelled. That is obviously a lie as well since Chris has stated here that the meeting did take place
RA: Sigh. Again, you really so desperately want to pin a lie on me, huh? Actually, the meeting that took place was NOT the original meeting that was slated to occur. It was supposed to be a much larger meeting that included all the critcis, and several others who would be there to enter into the discussion and make our thoughts known as well. THAT meeting was canceled, which is why I did not attend the conference.

HERE''S THE QUOTE FROM THE SADDLEBACK EMAIL TO ME FROM ERIK REES: "....due to a very low turnout we are no longer holding the session we had talked about between supports and critics."

Sorry, Tim, try again. You keep shooting, but keeping missing. Why? Because you are the one who is lying and being deceptive. Not me.

[Chris Rosebrough]

I've read the comments on this post with great interest. I don't want to butt in. However, I thought I'd give a passage of scripture for ya'll to think about.

Matt. 18:15   “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Verse 17 is very very very interesting because if I remember correctly Jesus ate with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners (even as wicked as me) and Jesus was loving and compassionate and even healed gentiles.

[Richard Abanes]

PAULA: Hey did someone on this thread say only Lutherans were saved? I have to wonder where he pulled that one from.

RA: NO. I asked a question.

[jason]

RA:
1. I am not gloating in the least. TBH, I'm actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the "Let's all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it" bandwagon.

2. You're entitled to your opinion. It is not shared by many, many people.
---
I invite you to take another look at what I wrote, Mr. Abanes. I made no claims to your actual motives or thoughts (re: #1), only to how you were presenting yourself by what you wrote in this particular thread (so #2 seems optimistic).

To be blunt, if you are going to write in a way that so easily lends itself to a negative interpretation, then you have sacrificed the right to act the injured party when another writes to you in a similar fashion. Please note that I don't endorse such language toward you or by you; I speak only to consistency.

[Tim Wirth]

Chris brother with all due respect you didnt go to Rick Warren alone but with Bob Dewaay. So Matt 18 really doesnt apply to this situation.
You have been very public with your concerns about Rick Warren we share those concerns.
So if Rick answered the hard questions great.
What were those answers?
Abanes book about Warren "Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him" didnt really have any responce from Rick Warren even in the interview with Warren because instead of letting Rick Warren respond Richard answered the questions for Warren later on in the book (ie Schuller questions etc.. what did Warren really say).

Chris this all effects the Body of Christ so I would heartily encourage you to go public with all the Q&A.
Chris with all respect to you brother.
If there is nothing to hide nothing will be hidden.
Rick Warrens unbiblical and un Christlike teachings are very much out in the public.
Anything that will clear up any confusion should be public knowledge.
Im not digging for dirt on you brother as Abanes may imply.
I mean this all in love.
Im not sure what you mean by quoting verse 17 are we talking about Rick Warren here?
So are we referring to Rick Warren as a believer or unbeliever?
Not sure what your point here is brother.
If the thing at Saddleback was all good lets talk about it once you get the tape.
I trust and pray once you get the information you will let this information go public.
Did Saddleback ask you to not share this information even though they did not ask you sign a disclaimer?
If they did this should have been a red flag to you.
Sincerely in Christ
Tim Wirth