Rick Warren - Is He Scary?

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2006/10/rick-warren-is-he-scary.html ^ | Oct 2006 | discernment research group

[Blogger]

Again. I say, do the research.

You say “I don’t see anything magical about PD that makes it worth lionizing OR demonizing.” But, apparently you haven’t done more than a surface look at the subject.

One can not see, unless one looks. And for RW and the Church Growth Mvmt, there is more than meets the eye.

[beezdotcom]

One can not see, unless one looks.

I'm really amazed you deign to converse with idiots like us.

[beezdotcom]

No, I decided that I'm not going to end this on a flippant remark, however deserved.

You seem to want me to do all the legwork of presenting your argument. Friend, a charge such as yours, made by a faceless stranger, in the context of a rather yawn-inducing article, warrants about five minutes of my personal attention - ten if I'm greatly familiar with your work. I've spent twice that, and I've found no more of substance than:

RW is in danger of leading a personality cult (duh!),
PD is splitting churches (and the splits seem to be more about methods than doctrine), and
PD methods are BAD (but that's rather viewpoint-driven, since some of the PD methods of rebuke that upset people are entirely valid if dealing with someone who is acting heretically or disruptively to the body. The disagreement appears to be over who interprets 'disruptive'.)

In the time invested so far, that's what I've found. Sorry I'm apparently not as skilled as you are.

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you should be ready to convince others, have the information at hand, and cheerfully be willing to post it. Short of that, it's not much use tossing around charges.

[Blogger]

I have not called anyone on here an idiot. Yet, I was called an “evil one” for daring to bring the subject up - again by someone who evidentally hasn’t done any research on the subject. Nevertheless, I am not here to fight, but to inform or at least raise the warning flag. What you all do with it is on your account.

[beezdotcom]

So you chose to ignore the more thoughtful post, and instead only reply to the earlier, more flippant post?

[grey_whiskers]

Anti-Marketing-Based-Christianity Sarcasm Torpedo^TM ARMED. FIRE!!

Every time I hear of Rick Warren the phrase flashes through my mind:

"The Profit-Driven Church"

Cheers!

[Blogger]

If you will note, our posts posted at the same time. Your flippant one was the only one I saw.

Incidentally, you should do more research. It IS over doctrine. Most significantly, soteriology, or salvation.

[Blogger]

Warren’s Soteriology:

“First, believe. Believe God loves you and made you for his purposes. Believe you’re not an accident. Believe you were made to last forever. Believe God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you. Believe that no matter what you’ve done, God wants to forgive you.

“Second, receive. Receive Jesus into your life as Lord and Saviour. Receive his forgiveness for your sins. Receive his Spirit, who will give you the power to fulfill your life purpose. Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: ‘Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.’ Go ahead. “If you sincerely meant that prayer congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!” (p. 58-59).

Where is Repentance in this prayer? Where is any acknowledgement of how our sin has offended God in the explanation preceding the prayer? It isn’t there - nor is it in most Seeker-sensitive invitations. Instead, the true gospel is being replaced by a feel-good come to Jesus speech that is heavy on “feel-goodism” and light on doctrinal truth.

---

Warren’s eschatology

Warren is a dominionist who believes that Christians will solve all the world’s ills. He has a PEACE plan, which hesitates not to use whomever, including the local Imam, to fulfill its goals.

---

Warren’s theology

Warren’s view of the Sovereignty of God is deficient to say the least. Jesus said “If I be lifted I will draw all men unto myself.” He also said no man comes unless the Father draws him. In contrast, Warren’s entire premise is built around the idea that WE can make ANYONE respond to Christ through our own power. To quote Warren: “It is my deep conviction that anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart. That key to each person’s heart is unique so it is sometimes difficult to discover. It may take some time to identify it. But the most likely place to start is with the person’s felt needs. As I pointed out earlier, this was the approach Jesus used.”

Was it really? Is that the tactic that Jesus used with the woman caught in adultery? He addressed her sin and need for forgiveness with compassion, not her need (which in this day an age probably would be freedom from loneliness). Indeed, Jesus frequently (even while he met needs) approached people from their true need for forgiveness from sin and need to repent rather than any pop-psychology. Guess that’s why he called the most resistant to him a brood of vipers.

And, of course, the ‘felt needs’ approach is certainly that of the early church. Peter, while addressing the Jewish leadership repeatedly used that approach for sure with things like “This Jesus, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED.” And Stephen was sure using the seeker sensitive approach when he said “51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. “

[Blogger]

Some very good radio programs on the subject
http://www.cicministry.org/radio_series.php?series=redefining

[beezdotcom]

Incidentally, you should do more research.

Incidentally, you should present more research. Unlike the Democrats investigating Iran-Contra, the "seriousness of the charge" alone is not likely to sway me to do more than I have done - and "proof by vigorous assertion" doesn't hold much sway, either. He that has lips, let him speak.

[beezdotcom]

Here's the problem with what you've presented - if Warren says that he disagrees with the parts you have correctly pointed out as missing from these incomplete statements of faith, then you have a case. Otherwise, it's really hard to prove the negative.

I guess my sticking point is that we've successfully used some of Warren's materials, and have not even ATTEMPTED to paint them as a complete summary of doctrine. We've used them as helpful aids for presenting one small facet of Christian doctrine. It never even OCCURS to us to lean on them as a complete treatise on Christian theology - and if Warren intends them as such, it's news to me.

[beezdotcom]

Anti-Marketing-Based-Christianity Sarcasm TorpedoTM ARMED. FIRE!!

thhhhpt...*klunk*.

[Blogger]

Pragmatism does not excuse a biblically incoherent underlying premise.

[Blogger]

http://www.erwm.com/Church%20Growth%20Movement.htm
Read away. (Not that you will).

[beezdotcom]

Read away. (Not that you will).

With that attitude, I really shouldn't - but I will, anyway.

[papagall]

Ping ... isn’t Warren one of your stinkers?

[beezdotcom]

As an aside, to how many of the rants against ‘casual dress’ and ‘contemporary music’ do you subscribe? I’m surprised at how many of these links seems to touch on these themes within the first 5 minutes of reading. Those seem to be somewhat irrelevant to the topic of whether or not a church is doctrinally sound (or do you prefer songs from 200 years ago to those from 2000 years ago or today)?

[Blogger]

I am the church pianist. I see value in both types of music as long as the lyrics are doctrinally sound and the music doesn’t destroy the message (you wouldn’t want to do a song like Holy Holy Holy to a screeching heavy metal guitar for instance). I am also under 40 years old by the way.

[MHGinTN]

Stinkers? I don't understand the reference. A few weeks ago, when Rick embraced Obama and placed his position into Obama's political camp in doing so (though he probably was too dense to understand that he was endorsing Obama), I wrote that I though Rick lacked discernment and that such a character trait is essential to a pastor so it was very troubling about Rick Warren. Does that qualify as calling Rick a stinker or am I being painted as a democrat? Spitooie, nasty that

[Terriergal]

"Do secular liberals who applaud and enable Warren know that he aims to recruit '1 billion Christian foot soldiers' who are willing to do 'whatever it takes' to turn the entire planet into a purpose-driven Kingdom of God?

Sure they do. The 'whatever it takes' is a lie. He won't preach the truth, and that's the ONLY thing they really fear. They're glad to take his social gospel and handouts as long as he doesn't preach the true Gospel, the one which really saves.