Sally Quinn on Rick Warren

[Rippon]

He's called America's Pastor for the same reason Billy Graham was...his interest in politics [is] NOT because he preaches a watered, down ecumenical (another false accusation) Gospel.

Getting off the subject of RW for a moment -- Do you believe that Billy Graham has not watered-down the Gospel?! Do you believe that he has not been very ecumenical?!

 

[webdog]

Getting off the subject of RW for a moment -- Do you believe that Billy Graham has not watered-down the Gospel?! Do you believe that he has not been very ecumenical?!

In his later years? Ecumenical? Yes. How much of that is being just plain old is something we don't know.

I've never heard or read anything that would suggest the Gospel message is watered down, though.

 

[tinytim]

BTW, this Sunday is Ecumenical Sunday for our denomination.. (Just wanted to throw that out.. )

 

[Rippon]

BTW, this Sunday is Ecumenical Sunday for our denomination.. (Just wanted to throw that out.. )

Yeah,you can throw that out -- chuck it out post-haste.

 

[Marcia]

Yes, did you read the transcript below it? He edited on 12-15 to add that he thought they were talking about civil RIGHTS not civil UNION.

It seems a bit unclear though - he says that a civil union is not a civil right, and that he does not support making a civil union equal to marriage. It is not clear to me whether he is against civil unions no matter what, or against civil unions being treated as marriage. I can't tell from this.

I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there

 

[Marcia]

I think some have gone over the top here. Everytime a criticism or a looking at more closely of RW is done, some accuse others of being RW "bashers" or "haters." I hate no one. I think there are good things about RW and I am not out to "bash" him, whatever that means.

However, due to his huge influence, and the fact that the unsaved world is in many cases judging evangelicals and Christianity by what RW does and says (just search on Google and you'll see), it is very important to know what he is saying or not saying. It has impact. I read the PDL book and had some issues with it - not as many as others - but some. I also had an issue with him speaking in a synogogue about purpose driven but not giving the gospel. So sue me. I'm not supposed to care?

So, when a columnist in major newspapers writes something like this, it bears looking at. I am not inviting hate attacks -- if those come, then they come. This is a forum and stuff happens.

 

[webdog]

I think what's over the top is the false accusations against one of God's servants.

It's clear that the man is against gay marriage, however you want to brand it.

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage.

 

[Marcia]

I think what's over the top is the false accusations against one of God's servants.

It's clear that the man is against gay marriage, however you want to brand it.

Yes, false accusations against anyone is wrong.

So is calling anyone who criticizes or questions RW a RW basher wrong.

 

[webdog]

Yes, false accusations against anyone is wrong.

So is calling anyone who criticizes or questions RW a RW basher wrong.

...not when there is visual and verifiable proof that the bashing has or is occuring. It is what it is. I call a spade a spade.

 

[Rippon]

I call a spade a spade.

Sometimes you call a spigot a spider.

 

[Marcia]

...not when there is visual and verifiable proof that the bashing has or is occuring. It is what it is. I call a spade a spade.

Well, good for you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, good for you.

No they call questioning his doctrine and use of scripture as bashing. Never, and I mean never, question the almighty RW on this board. The claws will come out.

 

[rbell]

No they call questioning his doctrine and use of scripture as bashing. Never, and I mean never, question the almighty RW on this board. The claws will come out.

Some have misrepresented his position. Some have called him names. There have been some of you who have brought up valid questions to discuss.

It seems that when people are called out for the inappropriate stuff, other claws come out...:saint:

 

[tinytim]

What gets my dander up is the lies people have to use to put down RW...
If you disagree with his doctrine.. fine.. but make sure it is his.. and not what some anti-warren website says he believes...

I can understand why some don't like him.. but people don't have to misrepresent him to prove a point.

Every time someone starts a thread, it seems it under a false assumption..

Some just don't like him and he will never do anything right in their eyes.

 

[TCGreek]

Just goes to show that anything can be twisted for any purpose. How Quinn could have come to this conclusion shows she approached the prayer with her own agenda and presuppositions of what "acceptance" entails.

Great observation!

 

[gb93433]

I can understand why some don't like him.. but people don't have to misrepresent him to prove a point.

I am sure you have seen some who were leaders in churches and during the week they lie to people and cheat them. When they are in public with those listening from church they play the political football tune of their supremacy by belittling others and boasting of such great claims of doctrinal purity. Yet their life is one big lie. One thing that always works is to ask them about the disciples they have made. Usually the conversation quickly ends. Their disciples are their proof. Years ago when pastoring my fist church I had some in the congregation and on one Sunday I started speaking about Jesus' leadership. It exposed the hypocrites rather fast. When I was confronted by one of them after a sermon I simply told him to use his Bible and win people to Christ. His hole soon became deeper.

 

[Marcia]

What gets my dander up is the lies people have to use to put down RW...
If you disagree with his doctrine.. fine.. but make sure it is his.. and not what some anti-warren website says he believes...

I can understand why some don't like him.. but people don't have to misrepresent him to prove a point.

Every time someone starts a thread, it seems it under a false assumption..

Some just don't like him and he will never do anything right in their eyes.

Well, I hope you are not talking about me, TinyTim, since I started this thread. I did not start it to bash RW. I was genuinely concerned and in the course of this thread posted all the info I came across, including his retractions.

 

[Amy.G]

I am sure you have seen some who were leaders in churches and during the week they lie to people and cheat them. When they are in public with those listening from church they play the political football tune of their supremacy by belittling others and boasting of such great claims of doctrinal purity. Yet their life is one big lie. One thing that always works is to ask them about the disciples they have made. Usually the conversation quickly ends. Their disciples are their proof. Years ago when pastoring my fist church I had some in the congregation and on one Sunday I started speaking about Jesus' leadership. It exposed the hypocrites rather fast. When I was confronted by one of them after a sermon I simply told him to use his Bible and win people to Christ. His hole soon became deeper.

Well thank you for calling all of us who disagree with RW hypocrites.

He is just a man. I think I have every right to have an opinion about him. I have not "bashed" him. I just don't agree with his methods. You would think I had committed blasphemy.

 

[Rippon]

In his later years? Ecumenical? Yes. How much of that is being just plain old is something we don't know.

Billy Graham has been openly ecumenical since the early 50's at least -- long before old age set in.

I've never heard or read anything that would suggest the Gospel message is watered down, though.

You don't get out much -- do you?The Gospel as preached from the mouth of Billy Graham has been watered-down/compromised for decades.He's at one with Robert Schuller on many points.B.G. claims that people can be saved apart from the Name of Christ.

Schuller's mentor -- Norman Vincent Peale was lauded by Billy Graham saying that no one had done more for the Kingdom of God.

B.G. thinks even with all the differences with folks from Jewish,Roman Catholic and Protestant backgrounds common ground is found in evangelism -- even if the message is altered.

All those "decision cards" were handed back to leaders of those respective denominations --whether Jewish,Roman Catholic or Protestant.There was no true concern to lead folks to a real Bible-believing Church.

Billy Graham's message became :"Be on God's side.God loves you and is interested in you.Please pray to Him."

 

[gb93433]

Well thank you for calling all of us who disagree with RW hypocrites.

He is just a man. I think I have every right to have an opinion about him. I have not "bashed" him. I just don't agree with his methods. You would think I had committed blasphemy.

Did you read what I responded to?

"I can understand why some don't like him.. but people don't have to misrepresent him to prove a point."

It is not about disagreement but about being a liar to prove a point.

To have an opinion is one thing but to call an opinion fact without any facts is simply libel and slander.