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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)