Rick Warren

I am very disappointed in the behavior I have seen toward Richard.

What a way to welcome a new member!

As far as breaking the rules, yes he did, and he apologized.

I can cite many broken rules in the replies he received...

"Do onto others..."

 

I'm very upset about Richard's website. In his Bio link we get 3 pages worth of how wonderful Richard is and about a paragraph that mentions Jesus or the Gospel. There sure were alot of "I's" in that bio.
His website is a little bit "overkill" when it comes to self promotion.
Paul 33 you can forget Richard answering your question about RW taking Scripture out of context to fit the theme of his book. I mean why should he answer it when 2 thirds of evangelicals don't even care. I mean any seasoned christian can read that book and pick up on that in the first reading. To me in the intro he is off base when he states that David was transformed by Goliath's 40 day challenge. How. I thought the Bible said David was ready to fight Goliath because how he was prepared by tending sheep?
The spies were transformed by 40 days in the promised land? Yea, they were transformed alright. Only two of them had the faith to believe God could help them take the land.

These are examples of RW stretching Scripture to fit his purpose theme. Some may say so what. Well we are talking about the Bible here not the Sunday paper.
In my opinion he formed his book like some preachers form their sermons they find a topic,thesis, etc... then go and fit the Bible around it.
He never presents the complete Gospel in the book only the positive outcome of accepting the Gospel. Is an individual truly saved if they have no real concept of just what it is they are saved from? He mentions hell for a nanosecond in the book he never explains the very negative outcome if you reject the Gospel.
Funny, 3000 people were saved at pentecost and Peter basically said you guys murdered the Messiah. We wouldn't preach like that today it might damage someone's psyche.
We don't have to be offensive in presenting the Gospel but friends the "true Gospel" is offensive no matter how you cut it. That is why I'm leary of all this positive,never mention hell kind of evangelism. It is just not biblical.
When you get frustrated at how everybody thinks RW is the berries and can do no wrong remember this quote from RW himself. "Never question what God is blessing". Never mind that the Bible says to test the spirits etc... Why your intolerant and mean spirited, narrow minded and backwards if you question the the great PDL explosion. I mean its successful, everybody loves it God must be blessing it. Whatever. Ole Richard sure got his candy licked for a guy who is supposed to be so this and that.
If you don't think people will one day follow the anti-christ just look at how evangelicals will follow one man. I think it is a dangerous trend in evangelicalism that so many churches are copying,following after one or two men or trends.
I was reading in Christianity (Astray) I mean Today how evangelicals claim they have arrived. Meaning they are finally being considered as "players" in the mainstream. The author's word not mine. That can only mean one thing we must be doing something wrong if the world isn't disturbed by us. Gotta stop I'm rambling.

 

Shannon,

Brilliant. Present the Gospel and its positive effects without presenting sin and its negative consequences. The Puritans first preached the Law and how they failed to measure up before they preached the Gospel and God's grace to mankind.

I agree. Warren brags about how many translations he used in writing the book. He would have been better off sticking with the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and ESV instead of distorting the meaning of God's Word with the use of The Message, etc.

What Warren did to the Bible was a disgrace, and the evangelical world lapped it up. So much for Biblical Authority when you can make the Bible say whatever you want.

 

Hmmmm......Law to the proud, Grace to the humble. Wonder where they got such a radical idea? Could it have been from Jesus himself?

 

Well at least you got one thing right

Sorry -- I couldn't resist

 

Richard,
you are taking a hike.
Please don't take a hike.

Many people join the Baptist board and they have problems in the beginning.
AI disagree with many on the board but I do find some of them to be a source to make me think.
I hope i can make them think.
We don't all have to like each other but it is good to discuss things.
You might even find someone that helps you.

Atestring

 

"We don't all have to like each other"

Uhhh -- wasn't there something in that black book about loving one another --

 

...and also with John Macarthur, Piper, etc. Don't blast one author without calling out all of them.

 

Webdog,

Not exactly the same.

It's not a disagreement about what the text says, it is a distortion of the text itself.

Rick is more intelligent than that, I think. I don't know how a seminary grad can hunt and peck for paraphrased interpretations of the text and then pass them off as Scripture.

Because of Rick's high profile in Christendom, he needed to be even more careful. He dropped the ball on this one. That's why the Bible says, "not many teachers." Because we will give an account for what we teach.

I wish Rick well and hope that he will use his influence in the best possible way.

 

I am the Associate Pastor of a church here in San Antonio, Texas. I opened my e-mail this morning to find an e-mail from my pastor telling me that Mr. Abanes had come onto this forum to promote Rick Warren's unbibilical eisegesis and humanistic philosophy. My pastor also commented that some folks had actually spoken against this postmodern ear tickling. That prompted intrigue and hope.

Sure enough, you folks didn't take kindly to Mr. Abanes 1. breaking the guidelines of the forum by which he agreed to abide, and 2. his saddening support of horrific and confused doctrine.

Amen!

In Christ,

Dustin...

 

Here we go again

Hope? You are hopeful that there are still a few fundies out there on the fringe?

 

All,

It gave me hope to know that people are still willing to stand up for a Biblical worldview rather than succumbing to pragmatism steeped in postmodernism. Rick Warren's message is not the gospel. His methodologies are not Biblical. His book is not worth reading. I know this isn't popular, but I'm not concerned about popularity.

In Christ,

Dustin...

 

Hi Dustin,

I am glad we have encouraged you this morning. I would like to clarify some things, however:

His disregard for the rules bothered me more than his message. I would still be more than willing to have a civil discussion about the PDL
with him, and even invited him to join a discussion I started about the PDL here. If he we would like to come back and discuss it, I would still be interested to hear his perspectives and debate the issue with him. But, it became clear rather quick that he wasn't interested in discussing the issues, only selling his book. Why would he give us his perspective for free when he has $$$$$$$$$$ in his eyes? Perhaps, he will come back and prove me wrong. Somehow, I kind of doubt it. If he does, I will certainly apologize to him.

At this point, I am not absolutely against the PDL as much as I am an advocate for studying the Word of God. I will not make this a test of salvation. But, I do think if God's people would spend more time reading the Word of God, then programs like the PDL would become irrelevant. My fear is that I see the PDL becoming the new Bible of Christianity, and the Bible is becoming an afterthought for many Christians. I think this is a dangerous trend which is building a house on sinking sand.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Could you clarify a couple of things for me?

1. What do you mean by pragmatism steeped in postmodernism?

2. How RWs message is "not the gospel" (which I take to mean a false gospel)?

3. How his methodologies are "unbiblical" (which I take to mean contrary to or against the Bible)?

Instead of just coming on here throwing around terms you have heard others say, how about give us some clarity to what you mean and then we can dialogue about the issues.

 

All,

Are you indicting me with only hearing the terms I "threw around" rather than actually knowing what they mean and why I said them? That's arrogant and ignorant. Before you indict me, please make sure you know me. I assure you that I'm aware of the terms I "throw around" and why I use them.

Pragmatic - Rick Warren and his methodologies are pragmatism manifested in its clearest form. It is the methodology that says whatever works - use it! Do you deny that Rick Warren, et al, look to corporate business methodologies and schemas to "build the church" rather than adhering to the foundation of Scripture for their "model" of church growth? Yes, they are pragmatic in their approach.

Postmodern - Fuzzy and relativistic. That's a not so technical definition, but a fitting one nonetheless. In other words, and coinciding perfectly with their pragmatic business philosophies, the definitions for terms and ideas are very relative to the circumstance and ideology.

Thus you have pragmatic postmodernism rampant in the church and in the teachings of its Pastors - specifically in the context of this post, Rick Warren.

False Gospel - Rick Warren teaches Christ and Him crucified. Praise God! However, what does Mr. Warren teach about sinners and salvation? What does he teach about their spiritual conditions pre and post salvation? What does he teach about other essentials of redemption and holiness? Do you know? If you've read his books (and I have), then you'll know that it's a confused theology at best. Thus, I conclude that his "good news" is no good news at all.

Methodologies - Pragmatism not saturated in Scriptural standards is unbiblical. Postmodernism is unbiblical. "Seeker sensitive" methodologies are unbiblical. Thus, Rick Warren's methodologies are unbiblical.

All About Grace, if you are to reflect the character of your name, then I'd appreciate you being sincere about your self proclaimed title of "all about grace" when you indict others and make accusations. If I've misunderstood what seems rather obvious, then I'll ask for your forgiveness. However, if I have not, then I hope you will apologize for the unwarranted and inaccurate statement you made in your post.

I did not come on here and applaude others for their behavior. I did not come on here and give accolades to those who had a knee jerk reaction. Rather, I came on here and expressed my encouragement to those who took a stand against that which I am convinced dishonors God and disgraces Scripture. I've said nothing about the character of Mr. Abanes, his salvific position, or any other thing of the like. So again, please be very careful about jumping the gun.

In Christ,

Dustin...

 

Based on your definitions and statements below, I will stay with my previous conclusion.

You reveal your lack of knowledge regarding Warren's methods with your opening definition. RW does not espouse "whatever works - use it." He does the exact opposite. If you truly understood the purpose-driven model, you would understand that it is not about "whatever works - use it." Instead it is about church health. Warren is committed to the 5 purposes regardless of the size of his church or "success" of his ministry. Common accusation that finds no basis in reality.

Does Warren look to "corporate business methods and schemas" to build his church? Absolutely not. His church is built on the purposes. Nothing more - nothing less. Again, common accusation that finds no basis.

By the way, every church models some type of business paradigm. If you are a functioning church in today's society, you must follow some type of paradigm. Does your church have form of government? Business meetings? A chairman? A board? A committee? Then you are a church that implements extra-biblical "business" methods.

Students of postmodernism would no doubt chuckle at your attempt to link Warren and postmodernism. If anything, Saddleback is a proto-type of churches built on modernistic thinking as opposed to postmodernism.

If you simply mean that RW adapts his language for his audience, I would concur. That does not mean he compromises the gospel in any way. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself spoke in terms relevant to his audience. He approached Nicodemus and the woman at the well on very different terms and with very different language.

On the other hand if you are talking about Warren's methods, again you make the common mistake of turning methodological issues into theological issues. Common error. I will not demonstrate the inconsistency of this view at this point, but will simply say that you again employ methods that you deem fit for your context. If I were to attack your choice of hymnbook or pew color based on theological categories, you would say "that has nothing to do with the color carpet we have". Same premise.

If you want to be specific in your arguments, we can deal with individual issues.

Your questions demonstrate that you have probably read his books and nothing more, for if you have read PDC and PDL in an attempt to exhaust RW's theology on the issues you raised, you have looked in the wrong place. If you truly want to know what RW believes on these matters, you need to do more research and read where he addresses these issues. What you will discover is that RW's beliefs on these subjects are fundamentally evangelical.

I find it ironic that Paul believed that Christ crucified was enough but evidently you do not.

Your syllogism is foundationally flawed and therefore self destructs.

By the way, should a church be seeker "insensitive"?

And yes it is all about grace. That is why there is room in evangelicalism for the fringe fundies and the Rick Warrens of the world. Isn't the body of Christ awesome?

 

All,

I'll respond to a few points.

You say:

And simply saying, "Nu uh" doesn't validate your assertions. I'd be interested in Rick Warren's definition of "church health."

You say:

Unless you can substantiate that claim I reject it as false. Can you prove that every church "models some type of business paradigm?"

If you are saying that we must function according to some type of business paradigm, then I ask, why?

You ask:

A Biblical government based upon 1 Timoth 3 and Titus, but not business.

You ask:

No!

You ask:

No!

No!

No!

Actually, no we are not.

I wasn't addressing what Saddleback was "built on."

You say:

Can you divorce your methodology from your theology? Is that really a possibility? I do not think so. Thus, your premise is flawed and self-destructs.

You say:

I do. I even affirmed this. Again, your knee jerk reactions are unnecessary. Within the broad generality of Christ and Him crucified, are there not particularities? I apologize for not being more specific so that we could avoid another one of your indictments.

You ask:

What is a "seeker?"

In Christ,

Dustin...

 

DCurlee...from your church's website.

9. THE CHURCH

The Christian church, which is called the body and bride of Christ, is composed of all persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Corporately and individually, its members strive to worship, serve, and glorify God through prayer and praise, diligent study and application of the Scriptures, evangelism, sanctified living, good works, and observance of the rites of baptism and the Lord‰s Supper (Ephesians 2:19-22; Acts 1:8; Ephesians 5:19-21; Acts 2:42; Hebrews 10:23-25).

From Saddleback...
What is the church?
The Bible tells us that the church is the body of Christ in the world today. The New Testament tells us the church is a local body of baptized believers. The head of the church is Jesus Christ. The biblical purposes of the church are worship, evangelism, fellowship, discipleship and ministry to others. We state those purposes in a process in Saddleback’s Purpose Statement:

To bring people to Jesus and membership in His family, develop them to Christ-like maturity, and equip them for their ministry in the church and their life mission in the world, in order to magnify God’s name.

(Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3)

So exactly what is the difference in church model besides you being a reformer, and reformers not liking RW?

 

Webdog,

In verbage - nothing!

Dustin...

 

This is a common mistake on BB. Someone comes on here making accusations (RW believes "whatever works - use it") and then when they are challenged on such an accusation, they respond by saying "you show me where he doesn't believe it." Are we overlooking the basic principles of debate and logic here? If you make the accusation, it is your responsibility to validate such a claim. Guess what? If I claim that you believe and practice baptism for the dead, guess whose responsiblity is it to prove it?

Then go back and re-read the books you claimed to have read.

If a church performs any type of "business" by which a person or a group makes administrative decisions, they are adopting a business paradigm.

How are decisions made at Bridgeway? Monarchy? Congregationalism? Eldership? Whatever method is employed, it is a practice adopted from the business world.

Is there a group within your church leadership or body that votes or makes decisions?

So let me get this straight, if it is not prescribed in 1 Tim 3 or Titus, you do not practice it? You practice no form of decision making or organization that is not prescribed in the NT? You have no votes, no elder meetings, no deacon meetings with a moderator, no congregational votes, no staff meetings, etc.?

No you accused them of being postmodern, which is absurd in light of their modernistic approach to ministry.

Again you miss the point. I did not say methodology and theology are categorically separated. I simply said that you have turned methodological issues into theological ones. Big difference.

To keep it simple, I will simply say it is an unbeliever. So repeat question: should a church be insensitive toward unbelievers?


I am still waiting for a demonstration of how Warren's methods are contrary to Scripture.