[ClearCase_guy]

Bad article.

It takes the time to define what is meant by "Evangelical".
It takes the time to say that "Evangelist" is not the same as "Fundamentalist".
It quotes Warren as saying that "fundamentalism" is an enemy.

But it never defines what he means by fundamentalism.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Check out this lengthly interview with "Amercia's Pastor" - http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 About half way down, Warren is quoted saying "Now the word "fundamentalist" actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity, and when I say there are very few fundamentalists, I mean in the sense that they are all actually called fundamentalist churches, and those would be quite small. There are no large ones."

Now, from this site - http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/five_fundamentals_of_the_faith.htm are the 5 commonly adhered-to fundamentals:

FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH



There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]

Are these "legalistic and narrow" or are they Biblical? Methinks "pastor" Warren has departed "the narrow way" in his efforts to attract many lost folks to his version of "church".

[Terriergal]

That's why you should do some more research before supporting this Sojourners/Jim Wallis mentality clothed in pseudo-Christian garb.

He already defined it he said "of all varieties" btw

Here he rejects the five fundamentals of the faith:

He also told everyone that departing from apostate churches which embrace homosexuality as something other than what the Bible says about it is a 'silly mistake.'

http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2005/7_28_2005/ne280705warren.shtml "Warren: Global Baptists 'are all in this together'
By Trennis Henderson
Kentucky Western Recorder

BIRMINGHAM, England - Affirming that Baptists from around the world can "have unity without uniformity," Rick Warren told reporters at the Baptist World Alliance's (BWA) centenary congress that the withdrawal of Southern Baptists from BWA was a "silly" mistake. "

[RobRoy]

"It quotes Warren as saying that "fundamentalism" is an enemy.

But it never defines what he means by fundamentalism."

That point was not lost on me either. When someone is quoted saying something that goes against what I thought the person would say, I need an explanation of what he meant when he said it. Especially when it is such a vague word.

[nickcarraway]

It's up to him to be clear about what he means if he says something like this.

[walden]

It seems to me that he deliberately fails to define it, because "fundamentalist" has become such a hot-button code word for "religious jerk." Do you know anyone who defines themself as a fundamentalist? I don't. I define myself as a biblical Christian, who attends an Episcopal church because I grew up there and am comfortable with the liturgy and the music. But, if you cross-examined me in detail on my beliefs, many would describe me as "fundamentalist". To a lot of people, if you believe that the bible means what it says, you are a "fundamentalist".

It seems to me that Warren is trying to bypass that hot-button stereotype, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[brwnsuga]

I agree, the article is not clear enough to respond accurately to it.

[brwnsuga]

I agree, the article is not clear enough to respond accurately to it.