Give Rick Warren a Break!

Hey Michael, thanks for your quick comment on what you would do. Do you think that this would be a big enough deal for you to where you would have to leave the church? I mean, in light of the fact that you teach a lot, and if others in the leadership believe so differently than you do on how a person is saved, could you still stay at the church if you were not permitted to teach on baptism or the Lord’s supper.

This is the predicament I am in right now…

Wanted to quote this again, since my other comment didn’t make it (maybe I hit something when I tried to post it?):

Ahab, speaking of Micaiah,

“There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” (1 Kings 22:8)

CMP,

I certainly think you are right about honoring God and having a positive effect.

However, disagreeing on theological points and being personally disagreeable to our brethren are two entirely different things.

Good apologetics has it’s rightful place in the church just as sound doctrine does. Both should be done carefully and honorably done, keeping in mind it is not honoring God to let his truth not be as important as His grace in our lives. John says Jesus was full of grace AND truth.

I think we Christians often make it an either or thing.

Marv,

“Cool, you have it all figured out! Wow, it must be great to know exactly how God works. See, the funny thing is, you are just two of thousands of believers who think you know “the right way”. But you can’t all be right. I used to be you, and I’m relieved to be free of that belief. You are afraid of the boogie man, that somehow God can’t guide “the average person” through faith issues and doctrines. It’s old, tired thinking and it has nothing to do with God.”

So now you have it all figured out? Now you have the right way and everyone else who does not see it as you do is wrong? This is the problem with critiquing other people for critiquing. Everyone critiques. They just want their view to reign supreme because they believe that they have the truth now and others are wrong. Let’s discuss the truth, not argue over whether anyone can know it.

Wow, Hodge. Had to dig deeeep for that one. Impressive. Lisa’s upcoming post on proof-texting may come in handy for you.

Okay, fun set aside. Do you really think that this passage overpowers the gentleness and respect that is admonished throughout the NT? Do you really think that you can equate Warren to an evil king who is practicing idolatry and openly mandating the nation of Israel into syncretism?

It is these type of associations that we need to be careful with.

Looking forward to see what comes out of the Desiring God national conference in a couple of weeks:

http://www.desiringgod.org/events/national-conferences/2010

Rick Warren is sharing the platform with Piper, Mohler and several others…

Michael,

Actually, my original post that didn’t make it said that I agree with you to some extent and that I’m not sure what camp RW falls into. I don’t follow him, so I don’t know. The problem is that I’m not digging deep at all. It’s right there in all of the prophets, Michael. My point is that we cannot criticize for criticizing, as you just did to me. We all do this, and it is the nature of ministry in the world. Who set setting aside gentleness and respect? But you are associating ideas with these that are more cultural than biblical. So I ask you, Do you think you can set aside the mandate to hold every thought captive, teach the whole counsel of God as preemptive to the attack of wolves, to defend the faith (whether from external or internal attacks) with the command to be gentle and respectful as we do it? Ahab is INSIDE the camp, not outside. He’s a “Christian” shepherd. He’s one of us, except that he’s not; but if we’re going to assume that everyone who claims Christ is of Christ, I see no reason to reject him. Once again, I’m not saying RW falls into this category. I would further argue that the prophets are all speaking to the community of God, not a bunch of outsiders. They are killed and put in jail by the community for their negative messages.

Again, my question: Is Christ’s ministry primarily encouragement in the sense that we’re using the term or correction?

Let me clarify, since my other post didn’t make it.

Michael’s camp is saying that everyone is flawed and therefore those who criticize RW are doing so in error. In this camp, RW simply has a few specks in his eye. The other camp seems to think that RW’s errors are more substantial and deal with the gospel itself. This camp views his theology as much more dangerous and that he is deceiving people or contributing toward their deception in some way. The post needs to be about why one camp is wrong rather than the other, not about criticizing. If we all assume with Camp 1 that RW just has a few flaws in his theology that are not substantial, then of course, Michael is right to some degree. If we assume that Camp 2 is right, then Michael’s post becomes absurd to those who see the occupation of ministry to shepherd the sheep from wolves and hold every thought captive. We’ve all been a victim of assumptions and emotions are flaring over them.

Hodge, I am not against being critical. I most certianly think that there are time when we must be such. But what I am trying to focus on here (esp in the comments) is that you don’t automatically have the right to be critical. Your audience is not a given. People can be tactful. Most importantly, we can be seen as a person who is gentle, respectful, and gracious in all things. When we have that, then our criticism is not only more effective, but, most importantly, biblical.

I think the best thing to do for these type of ministries is to ask yourself, Would I say that I am gentle? Would I say that I am respectful? Or would I say that I am always critical of everyone and everything? What is my attitude?

I am certianly not perfect…ask my wife. But these attacks on Warren seem to lack tact, gentlness, grace, and recognition of all that he does do and confess. The list of tweets demonstrated this I think very well. Look at the one that was chosen. Look at the assumptions that they had to tag to it. Look at what was skipped.

12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Col.3:15
12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Once we have truly done this, the “wounds of a friend” will accomplish much. Skip this, and don’t bother.

I guess I just think that this is still assuming that Warren is a brother who needs to be gently admonished. If that’s true, then your point is well taken. I just think that those who seem to be criticizing him, do so because they think he has been admonished to no avail, and that his errors are more substantial. I’m not familiar with the website to which your referring though, so maybe if I saw it I would agree.

But I do think we need to all remember that Christ who called Peter the devil, His disciples blind and ignorant, Paul who said he wished the Judaizer “Christians” would castrate themselves, and Peter who called Christians who turn away from the truth “unreasoning animals good for nothing but to be captured and killed” are also being gentle and humble in doing so (“gentleness” in the NT is in contrast to physical violence, not a soft spoken tone and humility is in relation to God first and then to others in priority). We just need to be careful that we are not imposing our ideas of etiquette on those passages and then gain a theology of rebuke that is itself in need of correction.

All good.

Here is some good comments on the tact about which I speak from Bucer and Newton:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/bucer-and-newton-and-theological-tact/

Hodge, there’s a difference in the positions. It’s not that Marv or any other critic of the watchblogs has it all figured out. But we do have one thing figured out, and it’s that we are all fallen and we are all imperfect in our theology, and it is on that basis that we are to be humble, considering others better than ourselves (Php 2:3). I think we all agree that none of us has perfect theology, therefore we should be humble. But the mocking and ridicule I see on the watchblogs has no hint of humility.

You say “let’s discuss the truth….” OK, let’s do just that. Is it not true that all humans, including Warren, Silva, MacArthur, you, me and CMP, have imperfect theology? Is that not a cause for humility? To me, the primary error of the watchblogs is the assumption that they hold the only possible correct view. And, mind you, none of the disputes are over anything that is central in church history! Warren does not deny anything that the ancient church held dear enough to place in a creed. And to my knowledge, no one can accuse him of some egregious sin.

Paul writes:

“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Which of those will you accuse Warren of? But I feel the watchblogs are guilty of slander on almost a daily basis, turning mere speculation about motives into accusations of intentional spiritual deception, delivered with the utmost haughtiness and arrogance.

Again, I have no doubt Warren has some theoloical specks in his eye, so I don’t mind if they disagree with Warren. but I will speak out against the arrogance, venom and hatred with which they express their disagreement.

“You say “let’s discuss the truth….” OK, let’s do just that. Is it not true that all humans, including Warren, Silva, MacArthur, you, me and CMP, have imperfect theology? Is that not a cause for humility? To me, the primary error of the watchblogs is the assumption that they hold the only possible correct view.”

Yes, but it’s also true that Arius, Pelagius, Alexander the Coppersmith, and Hitler have imperfect theology. The discussion should have been centered around your next statement concerning whether he is in agreement with the ancient creeds. The assumption that all of what is central and important is found in the creeds is itself a discussion we should have. Again, I’m not familiar with the site, so maybe I would agree that they are nitpicking. I certainly think that harping on someone for quoting someone who is theologically off can be nitpicking, unless the person endorses parts of that person’s dangerous theology. Perhaps it’s a site that glorifies in abasing others to exalt the self. I don’t know. I just don’t want to go down the “well, everybody is imperfect, so we shouldn’t harshly criticize” route. That seems more American than biblical to me.

I’ll also point out that on multiple occasions Warren has attemped to reach out to and dialog with the most outspoken of his critics, and those overtures have been consistently refused. Here’s this from http://surphside.blogspot.com/2010/04/ingrid-schlueter-on-john-piper-and-rick.html

I was one of several who were personally invited to Saddleback by Mr. Warren to speak with him in a private meeting last year. The PR offensive was clever, but it failed. Warren rests not, day or night, in his attempts to bring his critics on board and end the troublesome dissent that always plagues him.

I find that to be telling, along with the fact that most of the watchblogs either heavily moderate comments or do not allow readers to comment at all. Honest discussion and accountability can be such a distraction…

@ Craig. “slippery slope of salvation by works.” DING DING DING DING DING BINGO!!!!!!!! You nailed it. That is THE biggest problem with these self-proclaimed critics. It’s ironic they don’t even see the irony of what they are doing!

I just posted a new article here that might connect into this specific topic. I entitled it, The Persecuted Becoming the Persecutors.

I think even the implication that someone is a slanderer because they disagree with someone’s theology is also painting this issue with too broad a brush.

Maybe CMP’s friend was wrong, but let’s not make him out the monster either because he expressed an honest opinion. Folks on this blog do it all the time.

Yes, there is arrogance aplenty and mean spirited folks out here in the Christian world on all sides, who want to make a point by making another seem inferior so they can show off their superior knowledge or goodness or whatever.. Does that mean all who disagree with our conclusions are automatically wrong? No, of course not.

The whole point should be not to err on either side of the coin.

Dave,

With that we definitely agree.

The site you linked to above Dave, while proving your point, also just reminded me of another issue many people have with Rick Warren.

That link mentioned tha Rick Warren is on the advisory council of Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation. Here is the declaration people sign to be a part of their group:

http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/page/s/declaration

While fighting poverty and malaria in the world are certainly noble goals, is it really right for a Christian to join with all of the religions in the world to do so for the purpose of making a statement that religion is a force for good in the world as this declaration states? If we truly believe that Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life as we claim we do, should we be linking arms with other world religions to prove that we are all a force for good? Many obviously would say yes–so long as we are doing it for the purpose of fighting disease and poverty. However, are we not putting the Christian faith on equal grounds as all others by signing such a declaration? Is that what we really should be doing??

Another quote about the Foundation from here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tony-blair-receives-2010-liberty-medal-at-the-national-constitution-center-102820839.html

“In 2008, he established the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which promotes respect and understanding among the world’s religions to show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world. By encouraging better understanding of other people’s beliefs, particularly among young people, the foundation aims to mediate and prevent conflict through increased recognition of shared values.”

“Increased recognition of shared values” and preventing conflict. Might sound good. However, when we are not at all in sync with those other world religion’s on the major issues of faith, should we as Christians be emphasizing our “shared values” and not the fact the world needs a Savior, and the only one is Jesus?

“Increased recognition of shared values” and preventing conflict. Might sound good. However, when we are not at all in sync with those other world religion’s on the major issues of faith, should we as Christians be emphasizing our “shared values” and not the fact the world needs a Savior, and the only one is Jesus?

Is sharing the fact that the world needs Jesus best accomplished by sequestering ourselves from any and all who don’t share our faith?

Hey Spencer Barfuss,

Check this out!

http://utah-lutheran.blogspot.com/2010/09/baptist-lie.html

This may help you to understand why the Missouri Synod and other confessional Lutherans believe that God really IS present in Baptism and Holy Communion.

Thanks!

Here is one more quote from Tony Blair:

“Religion is as important in this century as political ideology was in the last, Blair said. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation will fight extremism, organize faith groups against poverty and illness, and educate people worldwide about religions other than their own, he said.

There is a new reality. We have to come to terms with it. And it implies, at its fundamentals, peaceful coexistence or catastrophe,” said Blair in a speech before religious and business leaders at the posh Time Warner Center. “If faith becomes a countervailing force, pulling people apart, then it becomes destructive and indeed dangerous.”

http://truedsicernment.com/2008/06/05/rick-warren-joins-tony-blairs-interfaith-movement/

The trouble with that whole statement is that it basically totally contradicts everything that Jesus said would be true for His followers and the Christian church. Does not the fact of being Christian often mean severe division according to Jesus? But obviously that is not the case for Tony Blair. So what is Rick Warren doing as a part of the advisory council of this group?

Just another point to show that people do have rather large concerns about this man. And it seems to me they are for very good reason.

That whole article is worth reading, IMO.

Mavin the Martian,

Proclaiming Jesus as the only way definitely pulls people apart very often does it not? That is a real “no, no” to Tony Blair obviously. Therefore it seems to me his whole premise is totally impossible in the light of Biblical Christianity even though he says each religion’s beliefs can still be upheld. There just doesn’t seem to be much room in his statement for a religion that declares itself to be the only way, does there?

Hodge,

“Again, I’m not familiar with the site, so maybe I would agree that they are nitpicking. I certainly think that harping on someone for quoting someone who is theologically off can be nitpicking, unless the person endorses parts of that person’s dangerous theology. Perhaps it’s a site that glorifies in abasing others to exalt the self.”

Since the owner of the site in question has personally commented on this post I see no harm in outing him. Just Google “Apprising Ministries”. It is the first site listed.

cheryl –

While fighting poverty and malaria in the world are certainly noble goals, is it really right for a Christian to join with all of the religions in the world to do so for the purpose of making a statement that religion is a force for good in the world as this declaration states? If we truly believe that Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life as we claim we do, should we be linking arms with other world religions to prove that we are all a force for good? Many obviously would say yes–so long as we are doing it for the purpose of fighting disease and poverty. However, are we not putting the Christian faith on equal grounds as all others by signing such a declaration? Is that what we really should be doing??

It can be, but doesn’t have to be. Are you saying you wouldn’t want to work with a Muslim in Africa who would be up for fighting poverty and disease? I know we might think the best thing is to form our own Christian group. But what an opportunity to be salt and light, to share the love of Jesus, as we serve humanity together.

Of course, every opportunity needs to be considered individually. But to simply be 100% convinced we should never consider ever working with concerned Muslims is not the answer either.

Cheryl, in Mere Christianity, Lewis’ argument throughout the entire first section is that all of us share common values – God-given values. Later, he observes that many faiths share common ideas, and that’s OK. It’s where Christianity differs from other faiths that we must take a stand, but up to that point of difference, we stand together on the basic and universal natural law, or basic morality.

We really do have shared values with the Buddhist who says stealing is wrong or desiring another’s spouse is wrong, do we not? The division comes later. But I’m not sure the division is found in a medical issue.

I do not feel that working with people of another faith on issues of common value is making a statement that “one is as good as another.”

For example, imagine a murder trial. The victim was a 15 year old girl shot by a gang member in a case of road rage. Would you serve on the jury with a Hindu? I suspect you would because you and the Hindu have a shared value, you agree that the incident was wrong. But is that some statement that your faiths are equal? I would say no. (BTW, this is a true example, my friend was on the jury for three weeks)

I know people have concerns with this, but I think we must be careful not to base our arguments on guilt-by-association. By that standard Jesus himself could be condemned. Everyone he hung around with was a sinner. And the Pharisees were quick to point it out.

A very short youtube video that Raick Warren could benefit by watching:

It shows the proper direction of the gospel…the opposite of Rick Warren’s theology of ‘doing’ ‘purpose driven’ stuff.

Our God is purpose driven, and that is good enough.

Dave and Scott,

I agree with what both of you are saying up to a point. However, it seems to me that with the quotes Tony Blair has made, we are talking about something beyond that here.

The first paragraph in the ariticle I quoted in my last comment has this to say, “Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday that leaders in an interdependent world must work to end religious conflict or face “catastrophe” as he introduced a new foundation dedicated to interfaith understanding.”

I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like that doesn’t leave much room for the Christian proclamation that Jesus is the the only way. That proclamation inevitably brings conflct with those that do not believe the message. One only has to look around us and read what others are saying every day to know the reality of that.

Cherylu

I am not denying that Christianity is at it’s core a devisive faith, separating wheat from the chaff. When you say that all are depraved and claim that there is but one way to redemption, you can’t help but be devisive.

However, I doubt that Tony Blairs Foundation is concerned with spreading faith(s) nor of salvation theology. It strikes me as being more about “good works”. And that is the context of my (devil’s advocate) question. We know that the nature of our salvation message is divisive. Should we by extension sequester ourselves from other faiths with regards to the performing of good works? What we may see as “maintaining purity” may be seen by others (who also desparetly need Jesus) elitist snobbery.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I do have problems with Rich Warren. But I waffle back and forth big time . When I listen to him for extended periods of time, I am struck by his humility, graciousness, sincere desire for christian charity, and the salvation of the lost. He is also aware that his methods are not without controversy within Christian circles. And when I listen to his explanations, they are not without some merit. But I personally just can’t get past the conclusion that his methods tend to result in easy believism Christians. But how many people have developed saving faith inspite of that? God will save whom He wills, yes?

Here is what I think of the Spiritual Formation stuff that some are associating Warren with: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/06/why-i-dont-think-to-much-of-spiritual-formation/

Obviously, I don’t agree with it. So much so that I wrote a blog about it sometime ago. However, is it enough of a problem that I am going to focus only on these things? Not at all. These people have so much right that it is hard to focus on the wrong. I am just so glad to be able to say that we are so like minded on so many key issues. I can hold hands with a lot of people so long as they get the person and work of Christ right.

“Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to stop them.”

Be careful who you are trying to stop.

Marvin,

Thanks for your continued response to my concerns.

I’m sure you are right that his foundation deals with good works and not with salvation theology.

However, since he believes we must “work to end religious conflict or face “catastrophe”, it doesn’t sound to me like he would leave any room for someone trying to speak of salvation at all since it is so devisive. And he talked about faith that “pulls people apart becoming destructive and dangerous.” Again, it sounds to me like that is what he would call Christian evangelism.

So how can a Christian in good conscience get on board as an advisor to a group whose head has stated these goals as he introduced his new Foundation? If this is what Blair is pursuing, how can a Chrisitian be a part of that without going directly against what Jesus has said and our Biblical command to be witnesses and make disciples?

Working together to fight malaria and poverty is one thing, but if it is being done in an atmosphere where anything that promotes “conflict” is an absolute no–no, are we not in effect signing away our ability to be obedient to God’s commands and in fact yoking ourselves with a group that would be in direct contradiction to those commands?

Cheryl,

I would be hesitant to serve on the board. But is it black and white AND, most importantly, is it THAT a big of a deal to give “warnings” about someone, closing our eyes to all the good that they are doing?

Simply put again, there are warnings that I could give about EVERYONE since NO ONE matches up with me either in their actions or their theology. It is a lonely world, this theological legalism, and it is one that does not have much room for the power of the Spirit (since he is doing such a terrible job on everyone but yours truly)

CMP

What you lose your hair shirt so you need a little flagellation on your own website? Looking for some purgatory here on earth?

Just step up and slam your head into the door several times – the door will develop comprehension sooner.

However, since he believes we must “work to end religious conflict or face “catastrophe”, it doesn’t sound to me like he would leave any room for someone trying to speak of salvation at all since it is so devisive. And he talked about faith that “pulls people apart becoming destructive and dangerous.” Again, it sounds to me like that is what he would call Christian evangelism.

You are making an assumption here aren’t you (a couple actually)? And besides, how a Foundation operates in theory vis a vis a mission statement isn’t necessarily how it operates in practice when boots are on the ground.

“So how can a Christian in good conscience get on board as an advisor to a group whose head has stated these goals as he introduced his new Foundation?”

I don’t know. It isn’t my conscience that is troubled. 🙂 All kidding aside, Warren seems to me to operate in a “foot in the door” mentality regarding evangelism. Perhaps he feels that by being on the board as an advisor, he can make sure that dialogue between the faiths can be done? But you would have to ask Warren as to what his motivation is.

Michael,

Call it theological legalism if you will.

Many folks see a lot of this stuff as serious theological error, (not just yours truly).

I guess we can just all be quiet about all of it and not care how much error we see being spread around out there and going unchallenged by anyone. Or when we are concerned, we can step up and say something. Doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree with us obviously!

And I don’t believe we need to go about it in a nasty way either. And I have tried to avoid that. Don’t know if everyone will think I succeeded or not.

And I haven’t said that Rick Warren hasn’t done anything good. But because he has done good, I see no reason that everyone has to just be quiet and let what is perceived as error go totally unchallenged either. Might we be wrong in our perceptions? Certainly. But does that mean we all just sit back and do nothing because there is that possibility?

And there is a difference, by the way, of trying to stop a man and trying to alert to and stop error.

And one last thing, I can’t help but think that the repeated references in this thread to the power of the Holy Spirit in dealing with error to maybe be a little bit misguided. Is it not often through other people that He does that work? Why were the apostles so diligent to point out error when they saw it and why did they tell others to do so too at times if the Holy Spirit does it all by Himself without any human help?

Cheryl,

The “yours truly” was rhetorically generic. I did not mean you. Sorry.

I don’t know if you have read any of these type of blogs, but I know you well enough to know you don’t fit their ilk. I would think that if you spent a day or two reading through them and reading their rhetoric, you would catch a better sense of where this post is coming from.

Again, I am not saying we should not be critical of many things. I am. Shesh, this is a theology blog devoted to truth (and that means we will be combating a LOT of error). My main contension is with the “we tried to stop him” mentality that we can so easily fall into.

Does anyone else get Monty Python quotes running through their head when they read this post and comments?

“Ximinez: Now, old woman — you are accused of heresy on three counts — heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action — *four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don’t understand what I’m accused of.
Ximinez: Ha! Then we’ll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch…THE CUSHIONS!
Biggles: Here they are, lord.
Ximinez: Now, old lady — you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly — *two* last chances. And you shall be free — *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Ximinez: Right! If that’s the way you want it — Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!
Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn’t seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.”

“NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.”

“I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am”

“No it can’t! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.”

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think he’s a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, he turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] … I got better.
Crowd: [shouts] Burn him anyway!

Cheryl, I have this question:

After all this discussion, can you see where it might be possible that this is a “disputable issue?” In other words, individual believers can reasonably come to different conclusions about what Warren (or any other believer) says and does. Or even come to different conclusions about , not just whether he’s right or wrong, but the importance of the issue itself.

Here’s how I personally look at it – if other Christians, who are indwelt by the Spirit just as I am, can come to a different conclusion or hold a different position than I do, shouldn’t I give that some consideration? I may still disagree, but my disagreement is tempered by the thought that maybe I’m the one who is wrong.

If, as CMP teaches, theology is best done in community, shouldn’t all members of the community listen and let the Spirit guide the group? To me, this is the strength of the ancient councils and creeds. The core truths of Christianity were recognised and clearly stated. So, if I find myself disagreeing with central truths, I need to be very careful. But the issues Warren is being condemned for are not those cardinal truths. Nowhere has he said “all paths lead to God.” By definition, the concerns are over peripherals, and I think we need to be careful in how we judge others on such things.

Continued below…

“In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, grace, and in all things, love.”

Perhaps you feel that not working with a Muslim on a medical team is an essential, but if that’s not your view, then maybe it shoud be approached with the idea that if we err, let it be on the side of grace.

I guess I base a large part of my evaluation process on whether the fruit of the Spirit is evident in whatever I’m looking at. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. In all honesty, and without trying to be harsh, I do not generally find those qualities evident on the watchblogs.

On the contrary, I find them to be focused on one thing – accusations against professing Christians, and I can’t help but think of the second half of Rev 12:10.

Michael,

I appreciate your last comment. Thank you.

Marvin,

Again you have made some good points. And I did make several assumptions However it seems to me that they are certainly logical ones given the Blair quotes about the dangers of religious conflicts and divisions caused by religions. But granted, they are still assumptions.

And you are certainly right about dialogue between religions. That is part of the purpose of the foundation–dialogue and better understanding. And maybe that is Warren’s motive for being there. I don’t know. And there is merit in that for sure. What I am concerned about is the fact that in an organization where conflict and divisiveness seem to be looked down on by the group’s founder as the biggies to be fought against and done away with, evangelism which is by nature divisive and conflict causing, would not seem like it fits at all. It is possible that it doesn’t work that way in practice though.

Dave Z,

Back up a bunch of comments, you said to me, “I do not feel that working with people of another faith on issues of common value is making a statement that “one is as good as another.”

That wasn’t exactly what I meant or said. Here is a part of my quote, “However, are we not putting the Christian faith on equal grounds as all others by signing such a declaration? Is that what we really should be doing??

I meant are we not just lumping the Christain faith in with all others–thus on equal grounds–by emphasizing shared values and that all religions are a force for good? I still think that point has validity. That does nothing to say that we believe Jesus is the only way.

I don’t want to ignore your last comment, Dave, but I have been needing to go do some errands since mid morning and it is now 3:30 and I still haven’t gotten there. So have to go for now anyway.

BTW Ken Silva’s toilet illustration is not original, he got it from Chris Rosebrough from one of his recent podcasts. Either a case of osmosis or living under Rosebrough’s shadow for too long.

I have personally commented on Rosebrough’s site that if it wasn’t for RW he’d have very little to do. Warren keeps these folks employed. He has become an indispensible commodity. RW critique (bashing?) “sells” the same way Hollywood uses sex and violence to make blockbusters, and news bulletins that rely on the “if it bleeds it leads” opportunism.

I’ve read enough of Warren to be convinced that he is an unconscious heretic and that (IMO) he allows his passion to overshadow his theological integrity. But the obsession the doctrine cops have with him is a site to behold. It is analogous to blood thirsty Romans in the Coliseum applauding ravenous lions ripping the flesh off those thrown in the arena for Nero’s enjoyment.

Just a real quick comment before dinner here, John. I have a hunch that the reason that folks have such an obsession with Warren, as you termed it is because he has such an extremely high profile. He has been called “America’s pastor”, is known as one of the most influential Christians around these days, and seems to be always involved with high level folks around the world and doesn’t seem to be shy about letting the rest of us know about it.

In other words, he has to one degree or another put himself in the place he is in himself by deliberately, it seems, maintaining such a high and extremely visible profile.

And also, if he is truly “America’s Pastor” and one of the most influential people around today in religious circles, is it not all the more necessary to warn folks if there is error being promoted here?

That doesn’t mean, however, that others should behave as bloodthirsty Romans getting their enjoyment from watching the lions eat someone.

On to fix dinner.

Dave,

I haven’t forgotten your question.

Cheryl – you’re right!

His high profile requires ‘high warnings’. But they’ve being doing it for so many years now that comes a point where one wants to say “o.k. we GET IT, can we move on to something else now?” Picking on RW doctrinally is no feat anymore.

Warning people about RW’s proclamations/statements/beliefs is one thing, but doing it obsessively with vampiric delight is another!

Still breakfast time here and you’re talking to me about dinner!!

Interesting comments about RW. I was involved in a small church a number of years ago. As a church we decided to aim to get the whole church into small groups and together work through his book “40 days of purpose”

We also invited people who were linked to the church through families / friends to get involved and they did. I found nothing theologically wrong with the book; though I know the Fundies and Restless Reformed would / will / do. But I don’t sit in that camp anyway.

The result after the 40 days was that we had a near 100% attendance in small groups which continued for a number of years till I left… as far as I know this has continued.

We saw many people who were on the fringe commit their lives to Christ and become rooted into the life of the congregation.

I think some of these so called discerning ministries operate out of jealousy and need to go and have a read of Jonah and learn from him who was angry at God because he dared cared for those whom were enemies of Israel…

Seems to me that those in these type of ministries really don’t want to see people come to know the Lord and will pull down anyone who does……

The focus is now on YOU, and what you do…instead of on the fact that you are a poor miserable sinner who needs a Savior.

The focus ought be on Christ and what He has done, is doing, and will yet do.

Instead, we get the grand religious project out of Warren and many, many others.

What we ‘DO’, is what got us into this mess in the beggining.

That’s the problem.

Hello.

Is this thing on?

This is becoming old news, but John Piper has invited RW to be a speaker at the upcoming Desiring God 2010 conference. This has upped the sale of heartburn meds throughout the anti-Warren blogosphere Piper has been denounced by people who have loved him for years. Articles have been written on teampyro and many other sites. Phil Johnson laments the viciousness of the attacks that are being made against Piper for daring to invite Warren. And they are vicious.

Here’s a video of John Piper explaining why he invited Warren.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/more-details-about-our-national-conference

Then read the comments. Then go to teampyro and read Johnson’s article and read those comments.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html

Then ask yourself just what it is that provokes such hatred in those who claim to be believers. I don’t mean hatred by the bloggers, who I thought wrote fairly, even in their disagreement. I mean by the commenters.

I do not use the term “hate” lightly, but regarding the attitude of some towards RW, it seems like an appropriate term. And it’s spilling over onto Piper. People are talking “separation” from Piper.

John (Who is still at breakfast time!)

You said, “His high profile requires ‘high warnings’. But they’ve being doing it for so many years now that comes a point where one wants to say “o.k. we GET IT, can we move on to something else now?”

Only trouble with that is there seems to be a lot of people that don’t GET IT-this thread is proof!

Dave Z,

I am trying to get back to your question now. First of all, the things we are talking about may not be essentials and they may be disputable. But they are not unimportant either. So do we just let them go? And considering the position Rick Warren holds and his high degree of influence, these issues do become even more important, IMO. As John from Down Under commented, high profiles need high warnings.

Yes, it is possible I am wrong about these things. But very frankly, even if I am wrong about the things we have specifically discussed here, there are several other issues also that could be brought up that are also of concern to me. I don’t plan on going there though. I don’t have the time and energy and I am sure none of the rest of you do either!

As I believe someone mentioned way back up the thread somewhere, Jesus was full of both grace and truth. We as individual people seem to tend to come down on the side of one or the other. Either we are going after the truth and forgetting about grace in the process, or we tend to go to the opposite extreme and give so much grace that we don’t want to, or don’t dare, to try to make any points about what is true and what is not. I don’t think we can afford to neglect either one of them.

But anyway, yes it is possible that I am wrong. But I still have concerns re what we already talked about–plus more. And it seems to me that with the status this man has, it is not wise at all to just sit back and not speak out when we see things that are of concern to us. He has vast potential where he is to do good–or to do harm.