This evangelist has a 'Purpose'(Rick Warren easy belivism alert)

USA Today ^ | July 21, 2003 | By Cathy Lynn Grossman,

[cpprfld]

Yes, attracting a crowd is more important than doctinal purity.

I disagree with you, I think us Christians spend to much time focusing on details of the bible instead of the underlying message.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

[txzman]

Attracting a person's ear and heart is important - but in the end it is God who does all the heavy work.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Okay folks, I live within 20 minutes walking distance of this church, and I have attended services many Sundays. I am NOT a church member, nor a bible thumping Christian. I have no axe to grind, but I can tell you a bit about this man and this church.

Rick Warren wants to bring people to Christ. Period! He offers a church that is easy to come to, but requires a commitment to join. If you sign up you must take classes, and agree to a full immersion baptism. For the average nonbeliever the music alone is worth going for, with professional musicians and a choir like something from the House of Blues, and that's one way he gets you in the door. He hopes the words you hear will keep you coming back.

Rick Warren does NOT believe in multiple gods, or that salvation is available except through Christ. He will not condone homosexuality, nor will he parade down Hollywood Boulevard with a bullhorn condemning the "faggots". He is tolerant and open to all who want to come hear, but he does not teach a "touchy feely" Unitarianism or New Age doctrine.

[Colofornian]

I disagree with you, I think us Christians spend to much time focusing on details of the bible instead of the underlying message. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

I think Christians like to cut & pick & compartmentalize what that "underlying message" is.

Example: People like to quote John 3:16, but if you ask them what John 3:18 is, you draw a blank stare: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already..."

But I guess to you, that's a mistake to focus on John 3:18 and not simply John 3:16 for that "focuses on the details of the Bible."

Those pesky Biblical details.

[Colofornian]

God is to be glorified for what He has done thru Rick Warren...at least 99% of what he's done glorifies God, and his latest book is certainly the best evidence of that.

This thread, tho, was also addressing a few possible foibles of Warren...one being his citation that Christians are quibbling and being nitpicky if there are lines draw 'tween Xtians & Mormons, or Xtians & Jews. I don't think the "debate" between these groups fall into the "non-essentials" category.

He...requires...you...{to} agree to a full immersion baptism

There's another foible. He concludes that it's the amount of water that "takes" for a baptism to be operative. God can work with an ocean full of water or a drop of water. It's His Word that is the real power within baptism. It's His water, too.

I suppose Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. & other church bodies which baptize infants should require those who have been baptized by immersion to be fully immersed in the Word before letting them become members of their churches. Then we would see what a legalistic type of requirement this is.