Rick Warren on the condition of man...

So Jesus was insensitive to seekers?

John 6 is not the only text in the Gospels (though many of my Calvinistic friends pretend it is). Far more passages speak of the crowds that flocked to hear Jesus preach and teach in a relevant fashion.

And even if we take John 6 as an example, it is the exclusive message that one must partake of the Bread of Life and drink of His blood that offended the crowd in this text and caused them to turn away. It was the message itself, not the fashion in which it was delivered, that caused them to turn in unbelief. Jesus is the Rock of Offense.

Furthermore, His message was directed to the unbelieving crowd (who were definitely seekers -- even though in the end they were seeking for the wrong reasons).

As you can see, John 6 is not a good support text for your argument (based upon your own logic that Jesus was evangelizing and not prescribing a worship service).

Follow-up question: would you agree or disagree with the assertion that Jesus OFTEN began his ministry based upon people's needs, hurts, and interests?

So at the end of the day, you maintain that the church must be seeker-sensitive. You simply argue that Sunday morning services are not for this purpose? Are you suggesting a church should never have an evangelistic-driven service?

BTW, Warren states in his PDC book:"Worshipping God is the church's first purpose."

What I know is that I have had multitudes of discussions with people on all sides of this issue, and few of the opponents are able to offer reasonable, biblical explanations for their qualms. The majority of the time it boils down to preferences.

I almost laugh when you suggest RW is not concerned about "actual" salvation. Saddleback is more thorough in their follow-up, membership, and church discipline than most of those I have read who criticize them.

MacArthur and Piper are great. I respect their opinions. But believe it or not, they are wrong on occasion and tend to paint with the same broad strokes as others in their camp. Even Mac and Piper disagree on certain matters of methodology (and theology). Who will you condemn at that point?

My whole point is that God is big enough to use the Warrens and MacArthurs even though they differ largely on non-fundamental matters. Both are men of God preaching the same basic gospel: faith in Christ alone.

I have been in much smaller boxes and definitely prefer the freedom that comes with recognizing God is bigger than my own preferences, thoughts, methodologies, etc.

If you prefer a box into which you can fit God, that is your choice.

Thanks for caring.

You have definitely done enough condemning w/o including me in your unstable diatribe

 

Wow! What a thread!

I can't help but be amazed at the level of criticism that Warren draws from some folks. I suppose it would be meaningful if those who condemn had spent the time necessary to know the man they condemn.

We so easily put down folks today. Here in this thread, along with the trashing of Warren's salvation and his ministry, we also have attacks on each other. This is a Baptist Board? Does that mean we should be Christians?

I've read Warren's PDC book, and I believe there are a lot of good ideas taught there. Almost everyone on this thread has acknowledged that. But then comes up a point of contention. Instead of finding out more about the point, the criticism flies to the point where Warren's own salvation is questioned. Way to go, Christians. Let's simply wound and kill each other verbally.

It's very easy to point to a successful person and criticize them. I think it somehow makes feel better. Instead of looking at all of the good, we can focus our attention on the one bad thing. Even if the thing is not bad in and of itself, we can make it look bad by changing proportions. Then we can happily sit back and be satisfied with ourselves.

No one is perfect, but at least Warren is doing his best to serve God. We should all do likewise.

 

Glory Bound:

It is difficult for some to think outside of their own parameters, presuppositions, and preferences. As a result they often criticize those who differ on the non-fundamentals.

I am not suggesting one should not challenge the theology, philosophy of ministry, methodology, or preferences of others. But, as you have stated, when the challenge becomes unwarranted (no pun intended) criticism and slander, it seems the line has been crossed.

Also, do not take things too seriously in these threads. This Warren exchange has been going on for several weeks and multiple threads. Those of us who have been involved in the heat of it have a tendency to appear more vicious than intended.

I respect the position of those who differ from me on this issue. By no means would I ever question their salvation, spirituality, desire to know God, belief in the authority of the Bible, or the motive of their hearts. I do wish the opponents could adopt a similar attitude. As I have stated before:

"Those who are not against Him are for Him."

 

I appreciate your concern over this,but I do feel strongly about Warrens' dependency on methodology over the Word of God...I am not being critical of success,nor am I jealous...but I do have a love for the Word and I appreciate churches who emphasize that...and depend on that,as oppsosed to comm center type ministry. Just because he uses the word as his basis,(the purposes of the church) does not mean he is implementing them correctly,so that the Word of God is dealt with correctly. I feel this is very serious,and not just a complaint,as you put it.

So,yes,we don't accept every whim of doctrine,we should examine everything,which some of us have done and we do see concerns in the churches of today who take on that philosophy.

Please read the whole thread,if you haven't already. You will see the legitimate concerns as well as the weak doctrine and teaching of the church. Is Rick Warren a christian,I believe so and I believe he loves the Lord,but I can support his emphasis in his seeker sensitive services as well as his philosophy of ministry.

Just had to comment here.....

 

This is not exactly directed at you, Molly, but your comment brought up a point: methodology.

Most of us are accustomed to our "traditional" churches. We have "programs" and and "order of worship". Most churches have sunday school and youth programs. Mens and Womens programs as well. What makes the traditional way of doing "church" better than Saddleback's way of doing "church"? I wonder if sometimes we're not seeing the forest for the trees. We're so accustomed to our way, that other ways seem wrong, mainly because they are simply different.

I have read it, and that may be part of my problem. In one sitting, it probably takes on a harsher tone than intended over a longer period of time.

While I see the legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that "weak doctrine and teaching" have been proved, however. I have observed many charges based on a web site statement, which was taken from a longer document that more fully explained the beliefs of Warren.

I believe it's unfair to determine someone's comprehensive beliefs based on a single paragraph pulled out of the context of the full article. Much more research has to be undertaken before a true understand can be made.

I find myself afraid to make a statement of my beliefs because I know someone can take the statement and either note something I left out or else twist it to mean something I never intended.

It's one thing to read a statement from someone and have concerns. But to take that statement and then turn around and deride the person and their ministry is quite another thing.

I just feel that we need more data before we jump on a fellow christian. Saddleback's ministry is more complex than a single paragraph can adequately describe.

 

Good post Glory, but I have to warn you -- you might as well go bang your head on the nearest tree. I have proven over and over again that Molly and some others do not understand the whole PDC paradigm and choose to attack one speck as if it were the whole, but it gets you nowhere. People with that mindset (and I was one of them for a while) are convinced their way is the only way and there is no mind-changing or flexibility in their thought process.

I pointed out the same trouble in basing someone's theology or methodology from a single statement on a website not intended for that purpose, but guess what? It still does not matter to them.

I have brought up the method inconsistencies of the accusers repeatedly, but they do not grasp the illogical nature of their complaints.

After a while, one grows weary of not having their questions answered and defending the unsubstantiated attacks of some who treat their preferences as dogma.

So just be warned that, unlike Paul's encouragement to the disheartened, you might be laboring in vain.

As I say often: if you live in a closet, you may not recognize that most do not.

 

I don't just have a problem with one aspect,but his OVERALL philosophy. And,yes we have studied it extensively.

 

What are you saying? I would have assumed that Warrent accepts the T (of the TULIP) as many Calvinist and many Arminians do. I am surprised that a statement about the fact of man's depravity would spark any debate regarding Warren's teachings.

What is the source of difference regarding the teaching of man's depravity and Warren's teachings?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, for what it is worth, I've been to Saddleback Church several times and have spoken with those in question. I've attended their weekend worship services, read the books and heard Rick speak myself. Doug is far better, but that is beside the point. I've felt the warmth of being seeker "sensitive" and the genuine care of Christ. In short, they clearly and without question believe that sinners need a Savior, and His name is Jesus. There is one way of salvation for a depraved man - Christ alone.

Their worship services are honoring to Christ, the message is uncompromised though the methods may be unconventional compared to your setting. They are Biblically based on the five timeless pillars of God's Word - and proclaim them with great sucess.

What an embarrasing and legalistic thread.

Josh

 

Examining one's theology is not legalistic. Accusing them of being lost and preaching a distorted gospel because they differ from me on the non-essentials is legalistic.

I'll be anticipating your answers to my previous questions Preach.

 

Can you then direct me to that portion of the threads where you have criticized other aspects of his philosophy other than his seeker-sensitive approach?

I am not sure how someone can study something so extensively and yet misunderstand it the way you do.

 

No one has proven Warren is outside the realm of evangelicalism in his understanding of human nature.

 

TIC alert:

But you did not visit Saddleback with Preach's "Absolute Guide to What is Right and Wrong in Every Avenue of Christianity"; therefore, you too must follow a distorted gospel.

 

Can you then direct me to that portion of the threads where you have criticized other aspects of his philosophy other than his seeker-sensitive approach?

I am not sure how someone can study something so extensively and yet misunderstand it the way you do. </font>[/QUOTE]I actually understand it very well. I would not have come to this decision without understanding it first....remember initially,we were open to reading the book....then after careful reading and lining things up with scripture,we see an overall philosophy,which puts seeker sensitive style and methodology above the Word. So,yes,SBC it is the overall philosophy that I have a problem with....He is not doing God's business God's way,but Rick's way.

 

Warren believes humans are sinners in need of a Savior. Can you please tell me how this is a distortion of the fundamental belief regarding the human condition?

So now you are accusing Warren of being unfaithful to God's Word? Well you might as well tack this false accusation on to your other slanders.

Not according to ETS.

Putting Pinnock and Boyd in the same camp as Rick Warren is laughable.

Still waiting ...

 

This statement alone proves you do not understand the paradigm.

You still have not addressed the overall philosophy. The only aspect of it you have criticized is the seeker-sensitive style. When you address the overall paradigm, then you can have grounds upon which to stand.

Your opinion is noted as such.

BTW, have you answered my question of a few days ago regarding your complaint of seeker-sensitive services? I believe you stated that your church has evangelistically-centered services on occasion, and I asked you, if that is the case, if your primary problem then is with the TIME and DAY of Warren's evangelistic services. Is this the case?