Rick Warren, market-driven church, and being all things to all people...

Let me just say upfront that none of these verses have to do with Warren. No one has proven that he preaches or promotes a distortion of the gospel, so until they do ......

Nevertheless I will deal with these texts:

The "no other doctrine" here is heterodidaskalein, which bascially breaks down to mean teaching of a different kind. Obvious context here is teaching contrary to the apostolic message, which has to do with the fundamental gospel and not preferred methods.

Strike one.

How can you depart from THE FAITH and remain committed to the fundamentals? Paul is obviously talking about the "apostates" who willfully abandon the essence of biblical faith.

BTW, I have not suggested one should only major on the majors. Don't add straw men to the discussion.

Strike two.

Is Paul providing an order of worship for a local church or is he instructing his young preacher boy in the ministry to focus his personal attention on reading, exhortation, and doctrine. The primary emphasis here is upon the preacher himself. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the local church. The preacher is to prepare to deliver God's truth to the people.

If this is a prescribed order of worship, where do the hymns go?

BTW, you added exposit. It is nowhere to be found in the original.

Strike three.

This has nothing to do with the "why" question. Again it is a personal exhortation for Timothy to do what he has been called to do. This discussion is not about the role of the preacher but the purposes of the church.

BTW, Warren preaches around 50 minutes a service, 5 services a weekend. He is definitely stirring and using his gift.

Strike four.

Do you have the one and only correct intepretation of every doctrinal issue in Scripture? If so, post them so we can make sure we are exactly right on every doctrinal issue.

No one has shown where doctrine has been compromised in Warren's approach. Moot point.

Strike five.

No problems here. Saddleback's goal is life transformation -- making disciples. They encourage godliness.

Strike six.

You just struck out more times than Barry Bonds did the entire baseball season.

Ready for a second inning?

Just please use texts that are relevant to the discussion.

 

I believe the fundamentals are fundamentals for a purpose. Do you believe you have the definitive, dogmatic answer to every doctrinal issue in Scripture?

Are you the constant eye that has set the standard? I am simply waiting for someone to show me where Warren has compromised the gospel.

Or perhaps he forgot to add: "and in 2002 Preach the Word will dictate what is the right and wrong methods and standards of doing ministry. He will declare what should and should not be employed."

You are justified in your own mind, and I respect your preferences. Just do not make them everyone else's preferences and do not suggest that your view is the more "spiritual" or "right" one.

Warren has sought to create an environment where men, women, boys, and girls can have their life transformed by Jesus Christ.

So should we preach only "negative, offensive" messages? The offensiveness of the gospel comes in its exclusive nature and not in its the presentation of it by the preacher.

And maybe Jesus should have investigated his approach to reaching the lost. Telling stories and meeting people's needs right where they were in life -- how offensive Jesus was to the right way that you have monopolized.

It would be so beneficial to the rest of us in ministry if you would publish the exact methods that are right and those that are wrong so that we do not step outside the boundaries.

In your finite mind, you are merely echoing Paul. In reality you are interpreting him from your own presuppositions.

Since you are the all-knowing judge of hearts and minds, can you tell me of my level of humility and knowledge?

But then again, you may not want to start comparing resumes.

 

SBC,Please do not respond with "until you give scripture to dispute anything Warren is doing to cmpromise the gospel...."

That can not be said,unless you are denying all of what PTW has stated and the authority of scripture that does state that the gospel will be an offense to many...Jesus was an offense to many....it was not easy believism,nor is it now,many suffer and die for the gospel. Rick W. wants to make it easy and non-confrontational.

Deny all you want,but scripture wins this discussion....

[ November 13, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

I overlooked the portion of Paul's admonition where he says, "oh and by the way, when you do this, it cannot be done in a constructive, positive manner. It must be done negatively."

Give me a break. Style of presentation has nothing to do with it. Can you show me where Warren compromises doctrine?

As I have already pointed out, it is the exclusiveness of the gospel that offends. That does not mean we have to be "offensive" in our presentation. Trust me. I have been part of many services where I was offended by the preacher and not the message. Huge difference.

And you probably wear clothes in which I would not be caught dead. It is much easier to call names and make accusations than it is to deal with the issue.

As I have said, I don't endorse everything Warren says or does. This thread (at least on my part) is centered upon Warren's purpose driven philosophy of ministry. If you want to discuss other choices he makes, start another thread. I am staying with the subject matter.

BTW, can you show us some evidence that Warren does not believe repentance is a necessary part of conversion?

If there is one thing I have never doubted about Warren, it is his belief in the power of the gospel to change lives. You guys need to make up your mind: is Warren's attempt to reach the lost with the gospel "at all costs" an affront on the gospel or not? First you attack his focus on the lost. Now you attack his lack of focus on the power of the gospel to convert the lost. This road is quickly headed toward the impasse of inconsistency.

Question (I will expect you to follow suit and not answer but here goes): should we create an environment that is not inviting for a person to commit their life to Christ? Should we do our best to offend and turn people away?

Be careful how you answer. You cannot have it both ways.

I am sure he is very embarrassed of Christ considering he has around 15k a weekend at his services (most who are direct converts of their ministry and not church hoppers). And before you go suggesting that numbers don't matter, do you believe in the power of the gospel to transform that many people to Christ through a faulty instrument like Warren?

Staw men. Straw men. Straw men.
I thought we decided we were not going to discuss this on a hay level but were going to deal with the facts.

Saddleback's choice of music style has nothing to do with the validity of their gospel presentation. If you want to discuss styles, go to the music forum. You do not have to use 18th-19th century music to worship God.

Can you provide me an example of where Warren has ever implied that he believes he can talk people into being a Christian through persuasive words and not the power of the Gospel?

Lots of accusations. No proof.

Warren is clear that he believes the gospel confronts people in their sin. Again it is the message itself that is confrontive and not the messenger.

Can you show me where Warren does not espouse the words of Jesus?

No Warren uses life circumstances to let people know that Jesus wants to meet them right where they are -- no matter what their circumstances are. Your analogy is flawed. I have never heard Warren suggest that life's problems go away with Jesus. As a matter of fact, they are clear that the opposite is true. They just let people know that God loves people with faulty marriages and financial ruin.

Kind of reminds me of the ministry of .... Jesus!

You better go back to the huddle and call another play. Your blitz was picked up by the backs. As a matter of fact, I am not sure we are in the same game. You have yet to provide one shread of evidence that Warren believes any of the matters you propose. They are merely your added interpretations.

Gotta love these sports analogies.

 

I wonder if anyone has ever looked at their web site to see whats going on in their church, what the church believes.
Heres a link, I've just read a little but would like to check it out more throughly.
Saddleback Church

 

Molly, the point is that no one has shown in any fashion how Warren has compromised the essential gospel of Jesus Christ. Some minimal effort has been made to say his presentation of the gospel is flawed (which was easily refuted). But no one has proven that Warren believes or promotes any gospel other than than salvation by faith in Christ alone.

Have you read any of my posts?

There you go again with that "denying the sufficiency of Scripture" accusation. Illustrate how Warren believes in easy-believism.

Lots and lots of arrows being shot. None of them hitting the target.

I am 100% for Scripture winning the discussion. I just wish one of you would use some to prove your points.

I can quote Scripture after Scripture about the purity of the gospel, but until someone shows how Warren has distorted that pure gospel, the repitition of the text is pointless.

BTW, when are you going to address the matters to which I responded to you previously?

Take off the presuppositional glasses and deal with the reality of what is being said.

 

I am finished for today. But I will return soon to address Preach's failure to deal with the issues I raised in the earlier post.

This has been fun boys and girls.

Just remember, I used to be in the same box in which you now live (with much thicker walls), and God has given me the grace to think beyond the boarders (in spite of my education and training- Molly) .

And would someone please come up with some actual evidence of your accusations.

In the words of Arnold ....

I'll be back

 

Katie,I have been on the website a few times. I read an article from the music leader a while back and it was so focused on making people feel good and making worship man centered instead of God,that I fianlly had to quit reading it. I've even listened to the song *I'm going to heaven* and I am amazed at how man centered that song is...it doesn't really exalt Christ or tell who God is....it just speaks about how I will benefit from heaven. It goes back to my same ole questions.....But,on a more positive note,some of the other songs were okay as far as words.

I did have a problem with "It's all about love"
It never mentions Jesus but says this: "I'm feeling better,I read your letter"...It all about love....It's all about love,etc...How is this a hymn,spritual song,or psalm?

[ November 14, 2002, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Jealousy is eating away at many on this board, Warren is a fine man doing a fine work.

 

I listened to him share the gospel under "Life's purposes"...what do you think of what he said?

 

Maybe someone can help me with the website,where can I read about his emphasis on expository preaching as his #1 priority?(I think it was SBC that said he recently preached through Romans...was this on Sunday mornings?) And...where is the doctrinal statment of the church,(what they teach?)all I could find was how to get *plugged* into ministry. Maybe I am not looking in the right places....I've tried to find these things before,but to no avail.

Thanks so much!
Molly

 

Preach:

I have to admit I almost starting laughing when I read your final post to me. I will point out just a few inconsistencies in your words.

The Scriptures you have added I have refuted and demonstrated how they are irrelevant to the discussion. You have yet to demonstrate how Warren and his theory do not embrace what Scripture says. All you have done is make accusations. You have yet to provide one illustration, one quote, one sermon, one statement, or one excerpt from his book to support your points.

E.g., I can say "Preach does not believe in the true gospel" until I am blue in the face. I can quote Scripture after Scripture about how false doctrine should be avoided and its teachers shunned. But until I prove that you do not believe or preach the true gospel, I have no basis for my claims.

Every accusation you have made against Warren, I have either asked for evidence or I have simply shown that your claim was not legitimate. Yet now you want to act as if you have proven some type of case against Warren. The truth is, you have yet to start to make a case. Begin with Warren's own words and then we will have a base to build upon. I have asked for this repeatedly but to no avail.

You are accusing me of nit-picking???
I have refuted your accusations and simply held you accountable for your outlandish claims. If you want to demonstrate where I have ever taken you out of context, feel free. In return, you have failed to answer all of the questions I have asked. I play your game, play mine.

What you apparantly cannot grasp in this discussion is that since we are talking primarily about methodology and not theology, it is possible that both you and Warren are wrong. There is no categorical "this is the only way it can be done" approach to ministry. The gospel is absolutely right or wrong, but whether I chose to have praise music or hymns or whether I chose to be seeker-sensitive or seeker-insensitive is not one of the fundamentals of the faith; therefore, there is room for disagreement and flexibility without one or the other parties being absolutely, without a doubt, right or wrong. There is a reason there are so many different opininos on so many different issues (besides the fact you have not released your "this is what we should all believe" book ) and that reason has to do with the reality that much of everyday ministry (our subject matter) is not addressed in the text. Therefore, we must allow for differences.

One of the primary problems I have in discussing these issues with those who love to belittle Warren and others who are different (and trust me in the academic world there are many) is that they have this "it is my way or no way" attitude that makes me sick. As I have said repeatedly, you do not have the definitive answer on every doctrinal and methodological issue, therefore, you could be wrong. As a matter of fact, someone can totally disagree with you and be just as "spiritual" or "right" as you are.

BTW, it is okay to admit that God can use people in a tremendous way who differ totally from you.

You are just wrong here. You have not provided one instance where Warren has compromised the gospel. Give us a quote or excerpt that shows us that Rick Warren teaches any gospel other than salvation by grace through Christ alone. Saying over and over that you have shown this does not mean you actually have. Give me factual quotes. Accusing Warren of preaching a non-confrontational gospel does not equate to showing he has COMPROMISED the truth.

To answer your question: YES the gospel Warren preaches instructs people to turn from their sin and turn to Jesus. As I have said over and over and over, their goal is life transformation. They are not some cheap-easy believists that are after numbers and not disciples.

There goes that Pharisaical attitude again: you disagree with me therefore you have not read enough on this issue.

Preach, I hate to disappoint you here but I am an avid reader of all sorts of philosophies, methodolgies, theologies, etc. I have read and read and read on this issue. The problem is not my lack of knowledge. I am sure I know far more about Warren than you do. The problem here is that you simply need to recognize that someone can differ from you and still be educated and passionate about God and his Word.

I have read Ashamed of the Gospel more than once. It sits amidst my 40 other John MacArthur books (speaking literally here not figuratively). Again, this is not a matter of what I have and have not read. I have talked with MacArthur on more than one occasion. I have spoken with Piper some regarding these issues.

Recognize reality Preach -- reading has nothing to do with this. I simply acknowledge the fact that God can use people who differ from me and I may not be exactly right on every issue, so I am just going to praise God where the gospel is being proclaimed and people are being discipled.

I learn from Warren. I learn from MacArthur. I learn from Piper. I learn from Swindoll. I learn from Barth. I learn from Carl FH Henry. I learn from multitudes of authors, theologians, speakers, etc. And in the midst of it all, I hammer out my own methodology and theology and recognize that everyone does not have to agree with me to be right. You could do yourself a favor and adopt a similar mindset.

Actually in the world of the academy, every word and phrase is vital. Trust me there has been many a time I was called to the table because I used a particular word or phrase.

I have taken your argument as a whole and I simply find it wanting. One-because you provide no evidence and simply accuse. Two-because you maintain this "I am the only one who is right" mentality.

When the weight of everything is delivered, it is quite the argument TO YOU to avoid Warren. However people of equal spiritual desire and academic prowess disagree sharply.

And neither do I. As a matter of fact, I have actually debated people who have actually brought the hard and cold facts to the table, and I have discussed those issues at length with them. I can provide a much better opposition to Warren's program than you have provided, yet I recognize the reality that God uses men and methods to do a great work that brings glory to God.

Discussion is helpful for the soul and to challenge us to think outside our own world and opinions. I hope you will allow it to do so.

Let me just add a final note. I believe you referred earlier to this approach as "relativistic". Please don't confuse the relativism of the postmodern world around us with the flexibility that must be allowed in secondary doctrinal matters (those outside the fundamentals). Relativism by its definition has to do with the belief there is no objective truth. As a result, relativism, in and of itself, has nothing to do with this argument b/c there is no doubt all involved parties in this discussion believe in objective, universal truth. Just an important clarification (not trying to nitpick )

Preach, I respect your opinion and maintain that you have the right to believe and do ministry in the way you desire (if the gospel message itself is not being compromised). I have no desire for you to embrace Warren or his philosophy of ministry. I simply want to challenge you to recognize the reality that others who differ from you can be used to do great things for God.

After all, both of us might be wrong

 

SBC,Do you disagree then with MacArthur and John Piper on these issues,since you have spoken to them? Have you not seen their concerns on these church growth seeker sesitive ideas and maybe thought they could be right? We have also been to a sheperdring conference where we heard John Mac,and we consider his views biblical and solid,as opposed to Rick W. *ways*(as you call it) of doing things. If there is agreement on the fundamentals,why are their churches so opposite of eachother? I can't understand that.

I listened to some of Rick Warren's things,esp his presentation of the gospel on His website,I'll admit,he seems like a really nice person and genuinely wants people to be saved. I do not deny his desires to see the lost come to Christ. I heard one mention of having sins forgiven,no mention of repentance or go and sin no more. I did not hear about Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. I did not hear exhortation of dying to self,taking up crosses or following in obedience. I heard..."say this prayer". I wonder how many people have *said that prayer* but have not really understood the whole gospel and what it involves to walk in obedience to Christ as a disciple. He does say to find a convenient service to attend(Sat or Sunday)and maybe he means then they can learn more about the gospel and how to live,etc....but I feel these things should be presented in an accurate explanation of the gospel,for someone to really understand it. What are your thoughts here?

Why do they have Saturday services? Is that more convenient for the seeker? Since Christ rose on the Lord's day,we meet on Sunday. Just wondering his reasoning for that...

 

What was shown was the fact that none of the verses you quoted nor any of the arguments you made hold water. The verses proved nothing (as I demonstrated and you failed to respond) and your arguments simply reflected: a) your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the model or b) your own personal preferences and opinions.

I will wait for you to show where I have been vague but I will not hold my breath b/c you have yet to answer few, if any, of the questions that I have raised.

Once again, my post evidently flew right over your head. Relativism by definition works from the presupposition that truth is not objective and universal. No one in this discussion believes in relativism.

If you want to make the accusation that one is being relativistic, that is fine. Just don't confuse terms.

As far as your accusation itself, just because I believe there must be room for flexibility beyond the essentials does not mean I am being relativistic. Surely you believe in some doctrinal flexibility at some level (in other words, you cannot believe that you are 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt dogmatically correct on every doctrinal view you hold and everyone who differs is wrong). This being the case, I could argue, from your definition of relativism, that you are being relativistic. You simply draw the line of preference at a different place.

So now you get to ask questions and expect answers when you have repeatedly refused to answer any of mine?

I am not afraid to answer questions.

1) I trust that I really do not have to answer this question. If you do not know what the Fundamentals of the faith are, we need to move this discussion back much further than Rick Warren. The essentials have to do with the very essence of the gospel. Paul boiled them down in 1 Cor 15.3-4 to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. I would add a few more that define the person of who Jesus is (Virgin Birth, sinless life, etc.).

I don't. Neither do you. We have to see what the Bible teaches is the very essence of who Christ is and what it means to be a Christian. Church history has hammered out this issue for us.

Silly question. Of course not. This validates my point. Are you suggesting every thing Paul preached and taught falls into the category of essentials? If so, you had better get to work explaining all of the doctrinal issues at work in each of the epistles, we have a lot of info to digest in order to become Christians.

I interpret them in their context just as I did in the earlier post (and you failed to respond). Paul and Peter disagreed vehemently on some issues. Can you show me where Paul instructed the others to disassociate with Peter? I never find one example in the NT where we are instructed to disassociate from someone who is preaching the true gospel.

BTW, if you are going to disassociate from everyone who differs from you on a doctrinal or methodological issue, you are going to have a very lonely life.

5) You don't. Just don't think you are the only one who is right and that those who disagree with you are less spiritual or less concerned with the truth of God.

When you want to address some of the other issues I have raised and you have not answered, let me know.