`Purpose' (Driven Life) pastor has pulpit for Obama (Rick Warren Courts Dems)

WASHINGTON -- Like many fellow Democratic politicians, Sen. Barack Obama is no stranger to the pulpit.

But in December, Obama will go where few progressive Democrats usually venture--to a large, conservative evangelical church that boasts a Sunday attendance of more than 20,000 people.

Even more unusual is that he'll attend at the invitation of megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, evangelical icon and author of the popular Christian book "The Purpose-Driven Life."

Aides to Obama say he will appear at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Dec. 1, World AIDS Day.

"Sen. Obama has a deep respect for Mr. Warren's commitment to fighting AIDS and poverty," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

While he was working on his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama asked Warren to help by reading one of his draft chapters. Warren issued the invitation to Obama to speak at the church next month.

The messages that Friday will focus on AIDS and HIV, a key area of ministry for Saddleback Church. While many conservative Christians have shied away from AIDS because of their discomfort with its connections to premarital sex and homosexuality, Warren and his wife, church co-founder Kay Warren, have been vocal advocates for patients living with the disease.

Shortly before the release of his latest book, Obama issued a call to progressives to shed bias against religious people and to recognize "overlapping values."

I don't want three different posts to respond to so I'm putting everything in one.

The statement of faith at Warren's church is biblically solid. Separating the statement of faith at Warren's Church from what Warren himself believes creates an incomplete picture of Warren himself. Others on FR have referred to the statement of faith as solid and have further stated Warren doesn't believe the statement of faith at his own church. I find the attitude of removing Warren from the solid statement of faith at his church disingenuous.

Reading one of Cho's books does not mean Warren endorses the book, neither does interviewing Cho nor preaching at Cho's church. Unless there's more to this, from what's been said an apparent endorsement was made of Cho's book but it really wasn't. Asking Cho to pray for American pastors doesn't endorse Cho's book either. Furthermore, Warren didn't ask Cho how American Pastors could be more open to miracles, he asked Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?

You mentioned sloppiness. One prime example of sloppiness is the first link provided to me (post 144) which blatantly misrepresented Warren's PDL book on the cross and sin.

A lot of what I've seen against Warren falls under the logical fallacy of special pleading or stacking the deck.

I purposely haven't answered some of your questions because, as I've previously said: we need to take this one point at a time. Painting straw men pictures of Warren is disingenuous. From all the misrepresentations of Warren, too many people have an incomplete picture of him (and I'm not saying he is perfect). Apparently we can't agree on some basic points from the very beginning and neither do we agree on what a primary theological issue is.

Hey Scripter,

Warren didn't just read Cho's book...He read it and then told hundreds of thousands of pastors that he had read it via his pastors.com website.

But Warren didn't stop there...He had a recorded interview with Cho in which he asked Cho what Cho wanted to tell American Pastors and Warren asked Cho to advise American pastors and also to pray for them. By these actions, Warren implicitly endorses Cho.

After telling Cho that he had read Cho's book (The Fourth Dimension), Warren asked Cho if American pastors should be more open to praying for miracles. What does "miracles" mean here? What is the context? Cho's miracles are produced via visualization techniques (see description in The Fourth Dimension). Do you agree with Cho's "The Fourth Dimension" kind of miracle?

Why would a Christian "pastor" ever post an interview to hundreds of thousands of pastors (who are being mentored/trained by Warren), which includes the thoughts and advice of an occult practicing false teacher?

...Just "sloppiness" (like the "bad examples" (your description) from pp. 9-10 in the PDL) or done with purpose?

How do you reconcile Warren's above-stated (and documented via his website) actions with Scripture's commands to refute false teachers; mark false teachers; avoid false teachers; and etc. (Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 6:20-21)?

And...Saddleback's statement of faith has as much to do with the specifics that I have stated to you as Haggard's Church's statement of faith has to do with Haggard's recently revealed actions!

I find your statements about Warren and Cho amusing. They're amusing because much the same could be said about me. I've purchased and read the Humanist Manifesto and talked about it online. I've purchased and read Darwin's Origin of Species and talked about it online. I've read a lot more on the subject and met and interviewed evolutionary scientists and posted the interview on the internet. I may even quote from them and ask questions about what they believe and why but I don't endorse their position. I have a few friends who are evolutionary scientists and some freeper friends that hold to phyletic or punctuated evolution, but I don't endorse any of it.

Can you be a Christian and firmly believe God used phyletic or punctuated evolution? I definitely believe so because such a belief is not a primary issue. It's a non-essential. The essentials are clear cut, but not everything is so clear cut as many try to make it.

Warren asked Cho if American pastors should be more open to praying for miracles.

I've already pointed out the interview web page doesn't list that question. Warren does ask: Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?

It's interesting that some people state Warren is sloppy but the statements they make about Warren are factually incorrect (i.e. sloppy). Some are blatantly incorrect giving the impression they were written for the purpose of deception. I'm reminded of Romans 2:21:

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?

Perhaps Warren would say to his detractors:

you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against sloppiness, are you sloppy?

I'm not saying anything other than it's ironic. Glass houses and all.

I think there would be a lot less concern over Warren if he wrote just a little differently without changing his thoughts.

Instead of saying:

Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days.

What if Warren said:

Sometimes God would use a 40 day period to accomplish some task or prepare somebody for his purposes.

Some of what I'm seeing here appears petty.

It is very interesting that you're willing to examine Warren's books, his website, some people he's previously spoken with, but not the statement of faith at his church. Here is the statement of faith at Warren's church:

ABOUT GOD
God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He has eternally existed in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. Genesis 1:1,26,27; 3:22; Psalm 90:2; Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Corinthians 13:14
ABOUT MAN
Man is made in the spiritual image of God, to be like Him in character. He is the supreme object of God´s creation. Although man has tremendous potential for good, he is marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God called "sin". This attitude separates man from God. Genesis 1:27; Psalm 8:3-6; Isaiah 53:6a; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 59:1,2
ABOUT ETERNITY
Man was created to exist forever. He will either exist eternally separated from God by sin, or in union with God through forgiveness and salvation. To be eternally separated from God is Hell. To be eternally in union with Him is eternal life. Heaven and Hell are places of eternal existence. John 3:16; John 2:25; John 5:11-13; Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:15; 1 John 5:11-12; Matthew 25:31-46
ABOUT JESUS CHRIST
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven´s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords. Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13
ABOUT SALVATION
Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith. Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1
ABOUT ETERNAL SECURITY
Because God gives man eternal life through Jesus Christ, the believer is secure in salvation for eternity. Salvation is maintained by the grace and power of God, not by the self-effort of the Christian. It is the grace and keeping power of God that gives this security. John 10:29; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 7:25; 10:10,14; 1 Peter 1:3-5
ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son as God. He is present in the world to make men aware of their need for Jesus Christ. He also lives in every Christian from the moment of salvation. He provides the Christian with power for living, understanding of spiritual truth, and guidance in doing what is right. The Christian seeks to live under His control daily. 2 Corinthians 3:17; John 16:7-13, 14:16,17; Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12, 3:16; Ephesians 1:13; Galatians 5:25; Ephesians 5:1
ABOUT THE BIBLE
The Bible is God´s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5)

That's a solid statement of faith. It's what Warren believes.

I want to stress that I don't agree with Warren on some things just as I don't agree with John MacArthur on some things, just as I don't agree with anybody 100% of the time. Who knows. I may vehemently disagree with Warren over some things, but what I've seen comes across as petty.

Good evening, scripter.

As the www.pastors.com breakfast interview with Cho documents...Warren did more than just read the book (are you being purposefully obtuse about this?) and talk about it online. He asked the occult practicing false teacher for his advice and prayer.

Is this the type of pastoral behavior and discernment called for in the NT?

In addition to talking about their books online, would you also have Darwin and several Secular Humanists give you Christian counsel and prayer?

So...you really think that Warren interviewing an occult practicing false teacher (Cho) and asking for advice and prayer for pastors and Christians is "petty"?

So...It is okay for pastors to associate with false teachers?

If you think that having an issue with this type of activity is "petty", I don't see us being very productive in our discussions on the other issues.

I knew about the wording of my question related to miracles...I wanted you to point out the inaccuracy of it again. It is interesting to see your standards when Warren isn't the author.

If Warren's standard of pastoral conduct was me, he would be much better off (partly because I'm not a pastor nor seminary trained)...but Warren's standard is Scripture - not me.

I will comment on the Saddleback statement of faith when you let me know what it says about associating with false teachers and the mishandling of Scriptures.

And...again, Saddleback's statement of faith has as much to do with Warren's actions as New Life Church's statement of faith has to do with Haggard's.

And...again, Warren didn't just say that God always used 40 days...He also used inaccurate examples (Noah, Jesus and etc.) and a distorted scripture passage (Romans 12:2, NLT paraphrase) in an attempt to support the false 40 days statement.

Your re-wording of the statement is better, though...maybe you should have been on The PDL editorial staff.

In fact as Warren has had recent, significant, additional problems with his words, actions and videos...maybe he could use another on his staff (What is his high-priced PR guy (Ross) doing anyway?).

Do you want to go to a different point or call it quits?

Have a good one.

As the www.pastors.com breakfast interview with Cho documents...Warren did more than just read the book (are you being purposefully obtuse about this?) and talk about it online. He asked the occult practicing false teacher for his advice and prayer.

Say what? That's what I mean about starting from the beginning and starting with agreed upon definitions. Warren interviewing Cho does not equate to requesting advice. It appears you read too much into what others say. Warren did ask Cho "Can you please pray a prayer of blessing to the pastors that are reading this?" Here's the prayer:

Heavenly Father, we thank you for many wonderful pastors and lay Christians in America. America is a strong foundation of Christianity through which the whole world received great blessings and benefits. We are now praying many, very rich blessings be upon each and every American pastor and Christian -- so that God may once again use America to send missionaries to the end of the world and to change the world for Jesus Christ. In Jesus Name I pray .

If you can find something wrong with that prayer then I'm listening.

In addition to talking about their books online, would you also have Darwin and several Secular Humanists give you Christian counsel and prayer?

This is more of what I mean about reading too much into what others say. Warren interviewed Cho. He didn't ask him for Christian counsel. I didn't interview secular humanists but I read the book. Was Darwin a Christian? Were the others I interviewed Christians? Some were, and I'm not going to turn away prayer from Christians.

So...you really think that Warren interviewing an occult practicing false teacher (Cho) and asking for advice and prayer for pastors and Christians is "petty"?

That part isn't petty. It's reading too much into an interview.

It is interesting to see your standards when Warren isn't the author.

You are responding to something I wrote but not the complete context, as I further wrote: I'm not saying anything other than it's ironic. Glass houses and all. Your comment tells me you see things different when the same standard used on Warren is used on what others have said about Warren. It seems you think words only have specific meaning when Warren uses them. And from everything I can tell about you, you don't really think that. But that's what you appear to be saying here.

I will comment on the Saddleback statement of faith when you let me know what it says about associating with false teachers and the mishandling of Scriptures.

The statement of faith doesn't discuss false teachers or the mishandling of Scriptures. Now that I think about it, I've never seen a statement of faith that did. I would imagine that's not what you meant to say. As you know, sometimes people write things that could have been better said in other ways. I know that's true of things I write and I'm sure it's true as I rush through this post.

And...again, Saddleback's statement of faith has as much to do with Warren's actions as New Life Church's statement of faith has to do with Haggard's.

This is what I mean about special pleading or stacking the deck. Warren's detractors are using his books, his interviews, his websites and some people he's talked with to paint an incomplete picture of him by not including what he believes.

I have no problem with the bad examples and believe Warren could have worded things differently. I remember hearing Warren say something about the different translations he used but I can't remember his reasoning.

In fact as Warren has had recent, significant, additional problems with his words, actions and videos...maybe he could use another on his staff (What is his high-priced PR guy (Ross) doing anyway?).

What does it pay? All my work is going to India. :-/

Do you want to go to a different point or call it quits?

I think we should call it quits, and I'm glad we made that freepmail agreement early on!

Have a good one.

Have a better one. ;-)

All of the Nineteenth-Century founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were five-point Calvinists. Most of today's SBC folks do not realize that, but it is completely true.

The so-called Founders' Conferences conducted within the SBC movement have helped to educate a lot of SBC pastors with regard to this interesting point of historical theology. A fair number of SBC pastors have become "Calvinists" as a result of reading the theological arguments presented by their own denomination's founders.

The Calvinistic Baptists continued through the 20th Century, including pockets within the SBC. Most of the Calvinistic Baptists pulled out of the SBC when it became Arminian to a degree that was markedly hostile to predestinarian theology.

As I understand it, the resurgence of conspicuous interest in so-called Calvinistic theology is what got Southern Seminary in Louisville turned inside-out a few years ago. It is now a thoroughly Calvinistic seminary. (The SBC's Al Moeller is a five-point Calvinist, of course, just as John MacArthur is, even though is a non-aligned Baptist.)

The funny thing about all of this is that virtually all Protestants were solid predestinarians in the early days of the Reformation--Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Congregationalists, most Baptists, and even the Methodists who agreed with the Methodist Whitefield in his controvesy with John Wesley. A large percentage of the Continental Anabaptists were also absolute predestinarians, having maintained this doctrinal perspective for over a thousand years in their occasional doctrinal statements.

The American Lutheran Church even split in 1881 when a Missouri Synod seminary professor proved that Martin Luther believed in absolute predestination. (Nowadays, most folks in the Missouri Synod do not really know why their Synod ever pulled out of the ALC!)

Anway, the doctrine of God's absolute predestination is a doctrinal topic well worth studying.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.