Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - What is the Purpose-Driven Church paradigm?

Before I critique the content of the PD Conference. It is important that people have an accurate understanding of the Purpose-Driven Church paradigm. There is a lot of confusion about what it means to be “Purpose-Driven”. Many people’s definitions of what it means to be “Purpose-Driven” are colored by their experiences (usually negative).

Some people believe that to be a Purpose-Driven Church means being Seeker-Sensitive. Although many many many Purpose-Driven Churches are Seeker-Sensitive that is technically not what it means to be a Purpose-Driven Church.

Some people believe that to be a Purpose-Driven Church means that a church is a mega church that utilizes a praise band, pop-psychology feel good sermons and small group Bible studies. Although many many many Purpose-Driven Churches are like this that is technically not what it means to be a Purpose-Driven Church.

Accurately understanding and discussing the Purpose-Driven Church paradigm is critical! If you get this wrong you will not truly understand it.

Rick Warren claims that Purpose-Driven is a Church Health Paradigm. In its simplest definition a “Purpose-Driven Church” is one that strategically and tactically works to fulfill five specific purposes for the church. These purposes are:

1. Worship
2. Ministry
3. Evangelism
4. Fellowship
5. Discipleship

According to Rick Warren, these 5 Purposes are “empty categories” that ANY church can fill with whatever content or programs that they see fit. In other words, a Confessional Liturgical Lutheran Church could technically be a Purpose-Driven Church by strategically addressing these five purposes. In this case the mix would look something like this.

1. Worship – Liturgical style with hymns
2. Ministry – strategic emphasis on community outreach to meet local community needs as well as acts of mercy for orphans in India and Katrina victims.
3. Evangelism – Organized evangelism training for lay people and the sending out of teams to share the gospel with unbelievers, along with postcard marketing inviting people to church.
4. Fellowship – regular and well organized events designed for community building
5. Discipleship – ongoing Biblical education and membership classes.

According to Warren some churches specialize in discipleship and neglect evangelism. While others specialize in evangelism but neglect fellowship and discipleship. The basic goal of the Purpose-Driven paradigm is to help pastors strategically and tactically address and measure progress and results in each of the five purposes. The goal of the PD paradigm is overall church health.

One of the reasons why people equate the PDC paradigm with seeker-sensitive churches is because Saddleback Church’s approach to meeting these five purposes utilizes a Seeker-Friendly approach, praise music, topical sermons determined through surveys, the PEACE plan, and small group studies. There is an incorrect assumption that Saddleback’s methods for meeting the five purposes is the only way to meet them. I will agree that many Purpose-Driven churches model themselves on Saddleback but that DOES NOT mean that is the only way to be “Purpose-Driven”.

I’ll say this again for emphasis…The reason why the Purpose-Driven brand has become synonymous with seeker-sensitive mega churches is because so many PD churches are utilizing the exact same strategies and methods that Warren and Saddleback Church use to meet the five purposes.

Therefore, the dangers of the Purpose-Driven Church movement DO NOT lie in its basic goal of helping churches focus on these five purposes. The problem lies in the methods promoted by Warren and others in addressing these five purposes. In fact, as bizarre as it may sound I must confess that the church that I attend and teach at is TECHNICALLY a Purpose-Driven Church.

A good way of thinking about the five purposes is to imagine each purpose as an empty glass. It’s not the empty glass that is the problem. The problem lies in what liquid you fill the glass with. Therefore, even though my church is TECHNICALLY Purpose-Driven because we address each of the ‘empty glasses’. What we fill those glasses with is radically different than what Rick Warren and Saddleback promote for filling those glasses. Contrary to what some of you may think and what Rick Warren says, what we fill those glasses with is NOT just a mere matter of personal preferences and stylistic tastes.

In the next installment I will lay out the huge differences between Christ-Centered (Gospel Centered) preaching versus what Rick Warren calls ‘Purpose-Driven Preaching”. These are two different liquids that can be poured into the ‘Discipleship glass'. But the differences between these two ‘liquids’ is not a mere matter of style. In fact, the differences directly impact the doctrine of Justification by Grace Alone, through Faith alone by Christ’s Work Alone.

Stay Tuned

Comments

[louis]

I must say. You are doing a good job with the RW critique. You're taking it slow and being very precise. I believe that you're acting in a very kind and gentle manner. Keep it up, & slam down pride in yourself when necessary.

[William Weedon]

If worship is treated as ONE among many of the Church's activities, the picture is thereby falsified. "And this is the catholic faith, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity..." "For the Father seeks such to WORSHIP Him..." The goal of the Church's evangelism is to rescue people from the dead-end idolatry in which they are born, and to bring them into the life-giving worship of the Triune God. It's not just one among others. It is THE activity of the Church, where all the others meet. My $.02.

[Chris Rosebrough]

Pastor Weedon,

Thank you for your 2¢. I think they were worth far more than that.

You are already picking up on the fundamental flaws in the compartmentalization that the PD paradigm employs. What Warren has done is taken business processes and employed them in the church.

All corporations have different departments; accounting, marketing, sales, IT, operations etc. No CEO has the luxury of favoring one aspect of his business and neglecting the others. Each department has its purpose and those purposes get rolled up and used in the overall achievement of the corporations goals, purposes or vision.

This is the same mindset as a corporate or business mindset. The fundamental problem is that the church is not a business. It is the body of Christ. The church is not divided into departments but into 'body parts'.

But, for the sake of this critique, I am taking PD concepts at face value in order to get to the more obvious problems.

Stay tuned

[Zek]

“But the differences between these two ‘liquids’”

Yeah, one puts you under the law, back on the “treadmill” working yourself to DEATH trying to earn things, only to feel like you failed every single day! While the other, Christ finish work alone on the cross, will give you life, Christian joy and peace like a river that never ends,
“… I want you to draw your joy & peace from Christ’s finished work on the cross not your performance, or what you can do for Christ” – Paul Washer-

This Youtube video really blessed me, I didn’t create it, only posted it, but it truly opened my eyes and I want to share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R92ulxb4tHc

-Blessing to all-

[Richard Abanes]

ZEK: Yeah, one puts you under the law, back on the “treadmill” working yourself to DEATH trying to earn things, only to feel like you failed every single day!

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.

Works have NO PLACE in salvation. I'm really confused here about what you might be talking about. Are you talking about another church -- like Mormonism, or JWs, or something like that?

Thanks for the clarification. :-)

RAbanes

[Account Deleted]

The question you didn't ask is: What is the purpose of the Church. If the purpose of the church is to:

1. Worship
2. Ministry
3. Evangelism
4. Fellowship
5. Discipleship

Then there should be no problem with PDC.

[Rebellious Pastor's Wife]

Simply put, it reminds me very much of Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Organized People" but applied to church.

Pick five roles that are a part of your identity, set goals for those roles, and identify tasks that you need to do to meet those goals.

All in all not a bad model for getting something done, so might be good for the board room, even the church board room, but not when it comes to administering Word and Sacrament, healing souls with the gospel.

[Zek]

Oops sorry RA posted my reply on the wrong thread, here goes:

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 they 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.

[John Draper]

Chris,
I think your overview of the PD paradigm was excellent. I'm looking forward to your discussion of the liquid that goes into each one of those five glasses.

Pastor Weedon,
Please don't think that the centrality of "worship" is not recognized by the PD paradigm. In fact, if you look at the "baseball diamond" picture of the PD paradigm, you will find the purpose of Worship in the center surrounded by the other 4 purposes. And those other four purposes are intended to bring a believer into the fulness of what your words describe so beautifully: "that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity".

To what extent the PD approach succeeds or fails at helping people to embrace God more fully in all that they say and do, in all that they are or desire to be is of course, open to debate. I look forward to Chris's remarks.

Peace,

[Bill]

Right on Zek. What you are saying is precise, accurate, and to the point. God bless!

What matters is what Christ did, not what Warren and his PEACE plan will do. As Christians, what we should care about is the gospel that saves us from sin. It's a gospel of salvation from eternal death, a gospel that gives eternal life, it is not a social gospel, it is not a gospel that improves life conditions on earth. The apostle Paul said it himself in his letter to the Corinthians, if as christians we focus on the social gospel we are of all men the most pitiable. We are more pitiable than unbelievers if our hope in Christ is in this life instead of the resurrection. Strong words from the apostle.

First Corinthians Chapter 15:
17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

[Richard Abanes]

Zek, you are answered on other thread.... "Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - My Presuppositions"

_________
BILL: What matters is what Christ did, not what Warren and his PEACE plan will do. As Christians, what we should care about is the gospel that saves us from sin. It's a gospel of salvation from eternal death, a gospel that gives eternal life, it is not a social gospel,

RA: You're right. And the PEACE PLAN is also not a social gospel, which is something Warren has condemned. Please see my Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:03 AM post about the PEACE PLAN in the "Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - My Presuppositions" thread.

RAbanes

[Bill]

Chris,

I'm not sure I agree 100% with you that PDL is not necessarily seeker sensitive. It's been a year since I borrowed from the library the Purpose Driven Church book, but I clearly remember Warren had a chapter on preaching in that book. In that chapter he clearly stated that christians would have difficulty with that chapter. In the preaching chapter of the book Rick Warren went as far as saying that seeker sensitive preaching is a biblical command. He acknowledged that seeker sensitive preaching does not edify the believer as well as traditional gospel preaching, but that it is a must for the Sunday evangelistic service that seekers attend at Saddleback.

Anyways, the whole problem with the purpose driven church book starts in the first chapter where Saddleback's story is described. The surveys, Saddleback Sam, etc. It's also interesting to know that Warren started the church with unbelievers only, there were like 30 people meeting in Warren's house and they were all unbelievers. That was Saddleback and Warren talks about it at the beginning of his book the Purpose Driven Church. That's how Saddleback got started. Warren then converted them, or so he says. This is the problem with Warren's "come and see" philosophy, the guy believes that he can invite unbelievers and fellowship with them and he'll meet their needs, find their hearts, and convert them. Warren thinks he's so skillful that he can convert almost anybody, and he says that in his book. Problem with this is, Warren can't convert anybody, God only can convert sinners. Jesus said it clearly in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless my Father draws him".

[Zek]

RA: "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!"

RA: "Every Sunday sermon does NOT have to be a full blown systematic theology course straight out a seminary or textbook."

Why not "the gospel" it's God message, it was good enough for the Apostle Paul? Preach it, in & out of season... God does not need the message changed, period...

RA:"Everything you listed doctrinally reads like a pamphlet from some classroom study guide."

I documented where I was coming from like a "pamphlet" so that you could understand where my head was, to limit the confusion...

The problem simply is "unconverted people" need the entire true gospel preached, on Sunday & the "sheep" need to be fed, my concern is that RW does both poorly, spiritual things, need spirit-lead wisdom, not man-made methods. He does other things very good that's why it's a sad.

[Jason]

Chris, I understand that you're trying to work within the self-described PD paradigm, but I'm really curious about the statement that the PEACE plan is not part of the paradigm, but only a specific implementation of it at Saddleback. Is that something you were told or read recently?

I ask because I've always thought, based on what I remembered Dr, Warren saying and my own research, that the PEACE plan was at a minimum using the PD approach as a springboard; they seemed pretty closely tied together.

Just curious if you'd been told otherwise...

[catransplant48]

Rebellious Pastor's Wife: You're kidding, right?

[DRB]

Organizing social activities is a purpose of the church? Give me a break.

Not just the seeker-sensitive methodology, but also the doctrine behind that methodology, is false and undermines the gospel. The church does not have five purposes, but one purpose: making disciples. That is accomplished only through the means of grace: word and sacrament (Matthew 28).

All other activities of the church support its commission, but never compete with it as parallel purposes. Prof. Marquardt explained this better than I can:

K. E. Marquardt. The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance, Ft. Wayne, India:International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research, 1990.

[Lindsay]

Just wanted to let you know I've really enjoyed your blog, and very much agree with your critique of RW.

[Janine]

DRB:The church does not have five purposes, but one purpose: making disciples. That is accomplished only through the means of grace: word and sacrament (Matthew 28).

Janine: That isn't the purpose of the church either. That is the charter of the church, and be careful with terms such as the "means of grace".

The purpose of the church is to glorify God forever. Whether or not anyone comes to God through a particular church ministry, as long as we are being obedient to Him and glorifying Him in our lives, we are fulfilling our purpose.

[Bill]

Agree with those that say that creating a classification of 5 purposes for the church is not mandated by scripture.

Jesus talked of 2 commandments that summarized the 10 commandments, and then we have the great commission

Also why is Warren distributing Purpose Driven Life books in Africa as if they were better evangelistic tools than the New Testament itself?

I don't know, I read the bible and believed, and when I read it I believed it to be God inspired. The spirit speaks through God's word to me. When I read the Purpose Driven Church and Life books I saw a very different spirit and I did not believe these books to be biblical. This is what it comes down to, Warren does human philosophy and adds bits and pieces of misquoted scripture. I call him a false teacher. Beside what he teaches, it's the fruit, we should know a tree by its fruit. Never seen in PDL churches people that go on Sundays in a spirit of repentance and brokenness, because they sinned the whole week. Neither does the pastor every Sunday remind the congregation of the need of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins that they committed during the week. No repentance, no humility, no assumption of total depravity, just an appeal to the flesh and meeting the needs of the flesh is what purpose driven is all about.

Bill

[Bill]

Warren can talk about Christ all he wants, but he talks about a different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture.

[Mike]

I think I will leave off my comments about Rick Warrens preaching content until later, since Chris seems to have that in mind for his next installment.

As far as the five parts of the purpose driven church:

1. Worship
2. Ministry
3. Evangelism
4. Fellowship
5. Discipleship

I think those are good purposes and I think they also relate to what many people have said here. When we worship, I think that we should glorify God and preach the gospel to the lost and feed the sheep. Our ministry, I think, is a reflection of the love we receive from God. I think, it glorifies God when we help the hurting, and it also gives us a chance to talk to people about the gospel. I think that churches teach about evangelism to give us the means to present the gospel to the lost. Fellowship helps us after a hard day or week. Sometimes I just need to be around my friends, fellow Christians, to remind me that God loves me and not matter how bad my week has been, that hasn't changed. (and that many times makes me want to glorify God, unless it's been an exceptionally bad week lol) Finally, discipleship helps feed the sheep, so that I become closer to God, and seek him in my life. People who follow God's purpose, glorify him in what the things that they do (most of the time,heh)

I think that these five purposes are a good way for a church to make sure it is covering all aspects of it's ministry. I also think that, like Chris said, we have to be careful that all of those aspects are Christ centered.

Just my thoughts,
-Blessings

[Richard Abanes]

DRB: The church does not have five purposes, but one purpose: making disciples. That is accomplished only through the means of grace: word and sacrament (Matthew 28).

RA: With all due respect, the overall activities and purpose of the church are multi-faceted in the world. Making disciples is indeed the commandment we are given in the great commission, but exactly how is that done? You need to break it down further into its smaller, logistical segments. Exactly how DO you make disciples? This is where your take on things breaks down.

Warren, in his PDC model, has attempted to look at the five basic aspect of church structure/activities, and show how each one needs to be balanced in order for a church -- generally speaking -- to run smoothly, operate efficiently, and maximize its potential given its size and the people leading it.

The HOLY SPIRIT'S activity in/through the church is a given! But we are people who need to run things on a daily basis. Surely you can see that. The Holy Spirit is not going to run out to Ralph's grocery store to get food for the day. The HS is not going to call the plumber when my bathroom pipes burst. And if I spend too much time playing video games, my work is not going to get done -- so I must manage my time well. In the area of church organization, in the spiritual realm, these are the kinds of things Warren has attempted to categorize for people to see more clearly.

1. Worship
2. Ministry
3. Evangelism
4. Fellowship
5. Discipleship

And these 5 categories are based on Scripture -- the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).

R. Abanes

[Richard Abanes]

BILL: Never seen in PDL churches people that go on Sundays in a spirit of repentance and brokenness, because they sinned the whole week. Neither does the pastor every Sunday remind the congregation of the need of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins that they committed during the week. No repentance, no humility, no assumption of total depravity, just an appeal to the flesh and meeting the needs of the flesh is what purpose driven is all about.

RA: Bill, did you ever think that maybe:

a) some people don't need to be reminded as often as you do about their sins?
b) some people already know that they need God's forgiveness daily and down need to have that same message given to them every single week?
c) some people outwardly show their inward understand of inner truths like their sinfulness differently than...say, you?
d) some people outwardly express themselves and their faith differently than you because they have different personalities?

Bill, bro, not everyone needs, feels, wants, listens, lives, acts, reacts.....like you.

__________
BILL: "Warren can talk about Christ all he wants, but he talks about a different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture."

RA: THAT is a terribly serious charge that places Rick Warren completely OUT of the household of faith and places him under the condemnation of 2 Corinthians 11:4, along with Mormons, JWs, and those of other such groups.

I could easily supply you with hundreds of quotes showing that Mormons and JWs do indeed preach different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture. I now ask that you begin producing statements by Rick Warren that directly show he is preaching another Jesus.

My clock says: 8:15 a.m. PST........ GO.

R. Abanes

[Zek]

RA: "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."

Richard Abanes, your comment about, about the "watchmen" is in error. Please watch this video link below regarding why the "watchmen" do what they do, it's not about RW, please watch, it may make you a little more sympathetic to the "watchmen's" true goal, and may shed light on the "watchman's" heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xipbPSt5uwU

[Ken Silva]

RA: 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 a sinful statement of judgment. How does Richard Abanes know these people "like" to be called this? Answer: He doesn't. How does he know they are not doing their best "standing for turth." Answer: He doesn't.

How does he know it "has become" for these people "a matter of attacking, being right, winning a fight, destroying someone, nit-picking, accusing the brethren, slandering others, and dividing the church." Answer he doesn't. Abanes needs to repent for these careless comments.

[Richard Abanes]

ZEK: Richard Abanes, your comment about, about the "watchmen" is in error.

RA: I think you COMPLETELY misunderstood me!! Sigh. The video you have linked is simply about people who are speaking truth, telling truth, and lovingly standing for biblical truth. I have no problem with these things. I mean, really, have you ever seen any of my works against deception? I've been standing for truth with other apologists for nearly 15 years. In fact, I've just released a book (see A new Earth, An Old Deception) exposing the dangers of Eckhart Tolle and his celebrity supporter Oprah Winfrey (who calls herself a Christian, yet says their are many paths to God and we all are God).

The so-called "watchmen" to whom I refer have NOT been following biblical guidelines for apologetics/discernment, have NOT been sticking to facts (but instead, have been twisting/perverting truth and facts to serve their own agenda to attack someone), and have NOT been acting in a Christ-like. loving manner (but instead, have resorted hateful, mean-spirited, and nasty personal assaults based on half-truths, misinformation, and sometimes outright lies).

R. Abanes

[Richard Abanes]

KS: How does Richard Abanes know these people "like" to be called this? ...... How does he know they are not doing their best "standing for truth."

1. because I see thes "watchmen" referring to themselves as "watchmen" incessantly on the Internet -- almost wearing it as a kind badge of holiness and righteousness.

2. because when they are given basic facts and truth that easily proven with evidence, they do not apologize, retract comments, or correct anything -- but simply keep spreading their lies.

______
KS: How does he know it "has become" for these people "a matter of attacking, being right, winning a fight, destroying someone, nit-picking, accusing the brethren, slandering others, and dividing the church."

RA: See above. And you, ken, are a perfect example, of....all of it. But I have tried to help you in that area, giving you several opportunities to do the right thing. I still wish you all the best in hopes that one day things change in a more biblical/godly direction for you.

But let's not start all that again. I'd like to stay on topic for the thread.

R. Abanes

[Ken Silva]

RA: "almost wearing it as a kind badge of holiness and righteousness... I'd like to stay on topic for the thread."

KS: Within this topic is the fact that there are those of us who are fed up with you monopolizing the comments sections of this site. We're tired of having to listen to your perspective while you as the well known "apologist" (who doesn't speak for Rick Warren) are speaking for Warren and simply blowing off those who dissent.

Then when you're confronted about it, which I just did as a pastor, you just continue on always being the one who is right. And why; well, because you are the elected apologist...so, of course you must be right.

And you have some nerve, and in my opinion the over inflated ego, to say that these "watchmen" allegedly are "wearing it as a kind badge of holiness and righteousness."

[stryker]

Mr Abanes,

In one of your posts above you maintain that works have no place in salvation, and I agree. However, your defence of Warren as not teaching works rings hollow.

My Father-in-law attended Saddleback for years and is finallly shedding some of the Works theology he picked up there. I have been there several times and have been less than impressed with the "Gospel" I heard. One of my best friends visited several years back and heard Rick say from the pupit "Your salvation depends on how well you follow directions!" He was really shaken by that, and it made a huge impression on him. Even if I am mistaken about my father-in-law (and I don't think I am) and my several visits were on "off days", my friend's experience is a clincher for me. Given our propensity for commending ourselves to God through our works, how many times does someone have to say something like that from the pulpit to qualify as teaching works righteousness.

[Chris P.]

Chris
You are doing a good job exposing the neo-legalists.
Now where's my "One Minute Manager"?

BTW does Abanes have a real job?

BD

[Richard Abanes]

ST: In one of your posts above you maintain that works have no place in salvation, and I agree. However, your defence of Warren as not teaching works rings hollow.

RA: Of it rings hollow, then i would ask that you please provide documented evidence that Warren does not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone. You simply CANNOT make a statement like this without proving the charge. Such an accusation is destructive and divisive if you cannot prove it.

And proof is NOT a reference to your father-in-law getting SOME impression from SOME message at SOME point throughout the years from SOME unquoted sermon(s) that salvation is based on works.

All he had to do was ask someone about the issue. Any problem or confusion could have easily been cleared up instantly by any pastor, lay leader, or staff member. or, he might have simply looked up salvation in church's FOUNDATIONS doctrinal teaching manual/course of study. That would have answered any questions on salvation in great depth. This doesn't sound like it was a problem with Saddleback or Warren's preaching.

_____
S: One of my best friends visited several years back and heard Rick say from the pupit "Your salvation depends on how well you follow directions!"

RA One of YOUR friend's visited once and heard one message? And from this one sentence he quotes to you, you come away with enough evidence to charge Warren with teaching salvation by works? That, my friend, is not apologetics.

Moreover, regarding that one sentence, I would VERY much like to see it in context. I have noticed that Warren's critics are adept at taking a sentence here or a phrase there TOTALLY out of context and using it as so-called "proof" of things that are simply not real.

You cannot say to people who are telling you that they DO NOT believe something that they indeed DO believe that particular thing you want to accuse them of. It's like telling modern-day Mormons that they believe Adam is God. That's wrong. They don't believe that. (Maybe Brigham Young did, but today's Mormons certainly don't).

________
S: Given our propensity for commending ourselves to God through our works, how many times does someone have to say something like that from the pulpit to qualify as teaching works righteousness.

RA: Again, I'd really lke to see this IN CONTEXT. Furthermore, I would ask you: How many times does someone have to say something like "we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross" that from the pulpit to qualify as teaching works righteousness?

And consider this: You are wiling to condemn Warren and accept one isolated statement as evidence that he teaches salvation by works, but will ignore and dismiss MULTIPLE statements from him where he says salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

Do you not see your bias and prejudice against Warren? Your standards for measuring what he believes are inconsistent. They change. When you want to accuse him, you only need one statement. But when it comes to accepting his orthodoxy, you reject multiple statements. Again, this is neither apologetics or discernment.

R. Abanes

[Richard Abanes]

Chris: BTW does Abanes have a real job?

RA: No. Rick Warren, through a Swiss bank account set up by the Antichrist, pays me $100 million a year. (uhm, that was a joke).

R. Abanes

[Ken Silva]

Chris P.,

"Neo-legalists" You got it right there Stanley!

What we're dealing with here is a neo-pietism. As you well know this dovetails right off of Richard Foster's disciplines to "earn" God's favor. Warren, who gives every indication that he does not believe in the total depravity of man, then takes this onto the idea of deeds we need to do to "earn" God's favor.

Ollie

[Tom]

Man, I was really enjoying this conversation until Richard and Ken came in to muck it up.

Richard, you're wrong on this one, I think. I think Stryker's friend's perception IS important and DOES bear on this conversation. With such a large church, and with so many visitors and first-time attenders, the perceived message is huge. If someone walked away from any service shaken with the feeling that salvation is contingent upon following directions...well, I think that's feedback worth hearing, not discounting because it's "not apologetics."

Ken, sorry brother, but you shouldn't be the one telling Richard Abanes to stop monopolizing the comments section.

Can you two take your catfight elsewhere?

[Ken Silva]

Tom,

Ok, I've written as many comments as Richard. Time to grow up now; did you see the red sky this morning?

[stryker]

Mr. Abanes,

Granted, my comments are not "apologetics" however, somebody can lay claim to Orthodoxy all day long, but if it isn't plainly apparent every Sunday to visitors, semi frequent attenders, and members, then what good are those claims? The fact that we are even having this conversation, tells me that Warren's orthodoxy has at least taken a back seat to his methodology, or there is something else obfuscating his commitment and teaching of orthodoxy.

[DRB]

Janine and Bill,

The things you mentioned are good to do in obedience to God's law, summed up by love for God and neighbor. As a new creation, I can obey God by honoring my father or by enjoying a hike outdoors to the glory of God. Those things are not purposes of the church.

The law existed before there was a church. All people, whether part of the church or not, are obligated to obey the whole law to the glory of God. As you can see in the Great Commission, Christ commissioned the church, not all people, to make disciples by means of word and sacrament.

That is not to say the law and the church are unrelated. Because we broke the law, Christ instituted the church to bring us the good news that he reconciled us to God (2 Cor. 5). Had we kept the law, there would be no need for forgiveness and thus no need for the church.

Here is the correct reference to the book:
K. E. Marquardt. The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance, Ft. Wayne, Indiana:International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research, 1990.

It has more complete explanations than I can give here.

[Zek]

I didn’t have to look far to find sound bites of RW salvation by works, found on this site. How do you guys make the http links so they don’t need to be copied & pasted. You web guys are smart:

http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/warren/TakesMoreFaith.wav

Above sound bite- RW “It takes more than belief, it takes more than faith to really please God” I guess that means it takes “works” or a “10 steps method”??

http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/warren/OnlyThing.wav

Above sound bite- RW “All that matters is do I love God and know how to love other people…” I guess it’s back to “me” having to do something again? But what if I am not good enough and don’t love people enough, see the “works”?

http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/warren/NothingIBelieve.wav

Above sound bite- RW “If I don’t live a life of love nothing else matters… What matters is how I love God and people, it’s not enough to believe…”?? Guess it’s back on me again!

RW- “Being a Christian is living a life of love in community…?”, huh??? You sure, I thought being a Christian, is God giving me the faith to repent & believe & trust in Christ, and His finished work on the Cross, and has absolutely nothing to do with the creature? I was dead in sin remember, I couldn’t have lived a life of love towards God if I wanted to, if God showed up I would of run the other way as fast as I could!!! I am only saved because of Christ & His work ALONE!!!, He took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart that responds to Christ, He did that, not me deciding to “live a life of love, in community”

I lived for 15 years on that treadmill, all it did is make me want to give up being a Christian, because I was always failing, trying to make Christ think I was special by doing 10 steps, never realizing that it was HIS finished work that mattered not my performance, hence my earlier post from yesterday:
“But the differences between these two ‘liquids’”
Yeah, one puts you under the law, back on the “treadmill” working yourself to DEATH trying to earn things, only to feel like you failed every single day! While the other, Christ finish work alone on the cross, will give you life, Christian joy and peace like a river that never ends,
“… I want you to draw your joy & peace from Christ’s finished work on the cross not your performance, or what you can do for Christ” – Paul Washer-

[Zek]

I believe that RW does NOT understand the doctrine of regeneration. When God changes the heart, CREATES the NEW CREATURE, that creature does LOVE, the new creature has the saving FAITH, and is GAURANTEED to be brought to GLORY, period!

Romans 8:30 Whom He predestined, these He also CALLED; whom He CALLED, these He JUSTIFIED , and whom He JUSTIFIED, these He also GLORIFIED

Notice its all in the past tense, its as good as done for the believer who has faith in Christ, it’s a promise that is based on God and He never changes and never breaks a promise. God already did the work to keep us, there NO work we need to do!

Remember Salvation is a GIFT of His grace

RW is not teaching this, he is keeping all his members running on their treadmills, sad!

[Richard Abanes]

Z: I didn’t have to look far to find sound bites of RW salvation by works

RA: Ahh, yes...the glorious sound bite. Sound bites, I have learned, is a favorite weapon of Warren's critics -- easily copied, easily lifted out of context, easily twisted/perverted to say anything. You guys pick and choose and hunt and peck for these types statements, rip them out of a context, and plaster them all over the INternet.

You know what I find absolutely fascinating beyond words, Zek? I'll tell you: It's the way Warren's critics will find one or two sound clips (or text statements) from Warren to make him look like a heretic (commonly by ripping it out of context), but then when I provide dozens of quotes/clips that plainly show the very opposite to be true, my dozens of quotes mean nothing -- but on their one quote hangs his entire doctrinal position on something. Really odd. Not really too fair, balanced, or very indicative of true discernment, is it?

And when you're answered and shown where, why, and how, Warren has been taken out of context -- you do nothing. You just go out and try to find more little quotes here and there to keep launching your attacks. Again, that is not apologetics -- it's witch hunting.

___________________
Z: I lived for 15 years on that treadmill, all it did is make me want to give up being a Christian, because I was always failing, trying to make Christ think I was special by doing 10 steps, never realizing that it was HIS finished work that mattered not my performance,

RA: Then you weren't listening very closely. Now, I COULD provide with dozens of clips and statements that shows Warren teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone down the line, but I seriously doubt you'd care at all. So, I won't bother. It's unfortunate that you'd be so willing to relegate Warren, and a whole church like Saddleback, to the trash heap of heretics and apostates. There's really not much more to say. I suppose you'd pitch me over into that pile, too, as so many have already done. Ahh well. :-)

______________________
Z: [Your mini-lesson on salvation, grace, and justification]

RA: Dude, you are so barking up the wrong tree. Regarding grace, justification, and grace, you might want to read my chapters on those issues in "Defending the Faith: A Beginner's Guide to Cults and New Religious Movements" (Baker Book House, 1997). It's endorsed by Rick Warren.

R. Abanes

[Bill]

RA: THAT is a terribly serious charge that places Rick Warren completely OUT of the household of faith and places him under the condemnation of 2 Corinthians 11:4, along with Mormons, JWs, and those of other such groups.

I could easily supply you with hundreds of quotes showing that Mormons and JWs do indeed preach different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture. I now ask that you begin producing statements by Rick Warren that directly show he is preaching another Jesus.

My clock says: 8:15 a.m. PST........ GO.

BILL:

I will say it clearly again, Rick Warren preaches a different gospel.

I don't believe Rick Warren believes that the natural man without Christ is totally dead in Adam. Rick Warren does not see the total depravity of man. I have never seen Rick Warren talk about his agonizing struggle against sin, both before and after conversion. Augustine, Jonnathan Edwards, John Wesley, Martin Luther, all these great christians wrote extensively about how they wrestled with the flesh and how the gospel saved them. I haven't seen a thing from Rick Warren on this. Neither does Rick Warren preach about sin in the fashion that the apostle Paul or these great christians that I mentioned did.

Sin is the disease, Jesus is the physician who saves from sin. This is the gospel of salvation, and the Jesus of the bible who lived a sinless life, paid the penalty (death) for sin that we deserve otherwise on the cross, and obtained victory in the resurrection. This is the Jesus of the bible, who said "The world hates because I testify its works are evil". The Jesus of Rick Warren loves the works of the world and does not say they are evil. Rick Warren does not understand the total depravity of man, neither does he make the preaching of sin and Jesus as the only way for salvation the center of his preaching (first and foremost, above everything else, preaching it every sunday.

[Rick Frueh]

"I don't believe Rick Warren believes that the natural man without Christ is totally dead in Adam."

Neither did Wesley.

[Bill]

"Neither did Wesley."

Rick Frueh, you are wrong. Wesley was a calvinist when it came to total depravity. See the following two quotations from Wikipedia. The link is provided below the quotes:

"The doctrine of total depravity was affirmed by the Five articles of Remonstrance and by Jacobus Arminius himself, and John Wesley, who strongly identified with Arminius through publication of his periodical The Arminian, also advocated a strong doctrine of inability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

"Whitefield debated Wesley on every point (except for their agreement on total depravity) but did not introduce any additional elements into the Calvinists' conclusions set forth at Westminster."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate

[Rick Frueh]

Wesley's interpretation of "total depravity" differs substantially from Calvin's. His theology is tied to original sin and the fall, but it is impossible to be an Arminian and believe in Calvin's total depravity. How can a sinner be TOTALLY depraved and yet have a free will toward God?

[Rick Frueh]

I believe Rick Warren subscribes to the doctrine that man is fallen through Adam's sin and yet retains a God given free will that when touched by the Spirit can respond to God. That is Wesleyan theology, and I might add, Biblical truth. (as he throws a doctrinal hand granade)

[Richard Abanes]

BILL: Warren can talk about Christ all he wants, but he talks about a different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture.
BILL: I will say it clearly again, Rick Warren preaches a different gospel.

RA: Bill, you can say it and say it and say it and say it. But I asked last night, nearly 12 hours ago now, for proof, very clearly stating: "I now ask that you begin producing statements by Rick Warren that directly show he is preaching another Jesus."

But instead f giving me in-context quote by Warren, you just come back and start leveling more accusations against him like, "Rick Warren preaches a different gospel."

You are proving nothing. Just making accusations. I'll do the same thing:

- Bill and Chris Rosebrough can talk about Christ all they want, but they talk about a different Christ and not the Jesus Christ of scripture.

- I will say it clearly again, Bill and Chris Rosebrough preach a different gospel.

See what I mean? Now what kind of statements might I need to produce to justify making these terrifically serious accusations. Well, I'd better have a WHOLE LOT of proof.

___________
BILL: I don't believe Rick Warren believes that the natural man without Christ is totally dead in Adam.

RA: Are you meaning to say from a Calvinist perspective, a Lutheran perspective, a Southern Baptist perspective, or.....?

___________
BILL: Rick Warren does not see the total depravity of man.

RA: Ahh, well, let me correct you. YES HE DOES.

• “[E]verybody has sinned and we’re all to be condemned because of that. . . . Adam was a real person and because of his disobedience sin entered the world. . . . There are two diabolical twins—sin and death. One goes with the other. When you see one you’ll see the other. Death is a direct result of sin. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death.” What is death? There are actually three different kinds of death as the Bible teaches: 1) Physical death. . . . 2) Spiritual Death. . . . 3) Eternal Death” (Warren, “How Jesus Replaced What Adam Erased,” part 13).

• “[We all have a] Sin Nature" (Warren, “Why Do I Do What I Don’t Want To Do,” part 2, Nov. 1, 1998).

• “Every person, although endowed with the image of God, inherited a disobedient heart from Adam, the very first man. This attitude of disobedience (called sin in the Bible)—unless rectified through Christ—forever keeps man from forming a relationship with his Creator” (Easter Message, 2004).

• “Receive Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. Receive his forgiveness for your sins.” “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” “Jesus took all of mankind’s sin and guilt on himself.” “[T]he church is made up of real sinners, including ourselves. . . . Every church could put out a sign ‘No perfect people need apply. This is a place only for those who admit they are sinners, need grace, and want to grow’” (Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pp. 58, 78-79, 112, 162-163).

___________
BILL: I have never seen Rick Warren talk about his agonizing struggle against sin, both before and after conversion.

RA: Really? Please tell me how many sermons you've listened to. I've been attending his church since 1994 and I've heard him talk about sin plenty of times. Of course, he's no Paul Washer -- thank God for that. He does, in fact, talk about that a lot -- which is partially why Chris, I think, sees him talking too much about law and repentance! (Isn't it ironic, don't ya think? -- Alanis Morissette).

___________
BILL: Neither does Rick Warren preach about sin in the fashion that the apostle Paul or these great Christians that I mentioned did.

RA: How about the way Jesus preached? How about preaching the way Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. Or the way he treated the woman in adultery? Or maybe the way he preached the Sermon on the Mount? Again, Jesus wasn't exactly ranting and raving like Paul Washer, but then again, he was only the Son of God.

But if you want a little good old fashioned, "HEY, wake up, these sins are wrong and stop sinning" message, then cool, I can give you that:

• “God’s standard has never changed. Premarital sex is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Living together without getting married is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Adultery, having an affair, being unfaithful to somebody you’re married to is unacceptable to God. It always has been and it always will be. Homosexuality is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Pornography is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Every one of those things brings a judgment. If you have been guilty of one or all of these things I’ve just mentioned you’ve come to the right place. This is what Saddleback’s all about. A place for healing, forgiveness, restoration. God says, ‘I want to give you a chance to come clean and start over and make the rest of your life the best of your life. . . . What is the path way back to purity? 1. Repent. Repent means “to change your mind.” . . . It means I change my mind and say, ‘You were right God. It was wrong. It’s sin.’ I don’t rationalize it. I don’t excuse it. I don’t say everybody’s doing it. I say, ‘It was wrong’” (Rick Warren, “Maintaining Moral Purity,” part 8, May 25, 1997).

So bro, I would request that you please stop saying Warren doesn't preach this, or doesn't preach that, when he does.

And you STILL haven't produced a single statement showing Warren teaches a different Jesus and a different gospel. Take care, my brother, to make those accusations without proof is slander, which God hates.

(Oh, and if you want about two dozen or more statements on "repentance" by Warren, just let me know.... my finger is already hovering over the "send" button).

R. Abanes

[Bill]

Rick: "Wesley's interpretation of "total depravity" differs substantially from Calvin's. His theology is tied to original sin and the fall, but it is impossible to be an Arminian and believe in Calvin's total depravity. How can a sinner be TOTALLY depraved and yet have a free will toward God?"

Bill: I will let John Wesley answer you in his words. And I'm not wasting more time with you.

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/

John Wesley:
6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.

With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

[Bill]

Richard Abanes:

I'm sorry I don't have time. I've made several posts proving Rick Warren's apostacy in the last few days, in the comments area of pretty much all of Chris' Purpose Driven analysis.

[Zek]

Can’t we look at RW book PDL and see that he doesn’t preach total depravity, that man must be somewhat good, and has free will, because in the PDL he says to pray this simple prayer and welcome to the family, isn’t that man making his decision for Christ, and making it from a somewhat “ill” state, not dead in sin. If RW truly thought man was dead in sin, to say to the reader to pray this payer & welcome to the family would be a waste of time??

[Zek]

The real question, is not do we know Christ, but rather does Christ know us!