Maybe you don't understand the rationale behind the "What we believe" statement. There are many Protestant "churches" that have pretty much done away with Christianity entirely: the Bible is considered man-made with plenty of errors, Jesus may or may not have existed, and if He did, he was a man only--not God. The statements are written so that potential members know that they are not walking into a post-modern humanistic "church" that uses a name as window dressing. I believe some so-called "Catholic" churches have slipped into humanism as well.
Two things here. First, I never said they have a shallow faith. I said they have a shallow theology. Second, as far as I see it, "nondenominational" Christians are the same as people who say they are "registered Independents." There is no such thing. If you are a Christian who belongs to a Church with a set of beliefs, you are a member of a denomination. The fact that they do not identify with any of the major branches of Protestantism is indicative of shallow theology.
The point of being non-denominational is similar to the point of citizens to have the right to bear arms. A centralized authority can become corrupt much easier than thousands can, and thousands can keep the authorities in check. Look at the corruption in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian churches in the last few decades. Look at the corruption in the Catholic church over the centuries. And look at which ones gain membership and which ones lose.
When Christians have the option to go to a Biblically grounded church or a feel-good humanistic corrupt church, then they tend to choose the Biblical one--that's a fact that I have seen over and over. If a non-denominational church's leadership becomes corrupt, then it dies and its members go to other churches. A denomination will siphon money from the less corrupt churches to uphold the corrupt church.
I'm not saying that Rick Warren is a bad man, or teaches false doctrine (although, as a Catholic, I do think so), or that they are damned, or anything. I just said it seems like a "Jesus loves you" Gospel to the exclusion of everything else, and they gloss over the challenges of Christianity.
I don't think you have a correct view in this case, which is probably distorted by the outreach documents you have read. Take a look at the other side (barf alert) criticizing Warren for his conservative beliefs. A "Jesus loves you" church wouldn't take the cultural stands listed in the article.
Okay...but it is still an outline of beliefs. Just because their outline of beliefs is more correct than a lot of the secular "churches" doesn't really negate my previous point. You're absolutely right that some Catholic Priests have fallen into that pit - but I would wager most people already know quite a bit (either truth or lies) about Catholicism long before they step through the threshhold.
The point of being non-denominational is similar to the point of citizens to have the right to bear arms. A centralized authority can become corrupt much easier than thousands can, and thousands can keep the authorities in check. Look at the corruption in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian churches in the last few decades. Look at the corruption in the Catholic church over the centuries. And look at which ones gain membership and which ones lose.
I can understand the point you're trying to get at, but Rick Warren is the Pastor-in-Chief of his church (I dunno his exact position, but you know what I'm getting at.). He teaches his beliefs, and if members disagree, they get to leave. I agree with you on all those points, but the very nature of having specific beliefs makes you a denomination, regardless of what you identify yourself as.
When Christians have the option to go to a Biblically grounded church or a feel-good humanistic corrupt church, then they tend to choose the Biblical one--that's a fact that I have seen over and over. If a non-denominational church's leadership becomes corrupt, then it dies and its members go to other churches. A denomination will siphon money from the less corrupt churches to uphold the corrupt church.
Agreed. Makes me glad my Church has been around for 2000 years despite all the stuff that should've brought it down ;-)
I don't think you have a correct view in this case, which is probably distorted by the outreach documents you have read. Take a look at the other side (barf alert) criticizing Warren for his conservative beliefs. A "Jesus loves you" church wouldn't take the cultural stands listed in the article.
I didn't know Warren supported Harriet Myers - that was a bonehead move for anyone, IMHO. And he may very well take those cultural stands, but every single time I've seen him on TV, seen videos of his sermons, or read something by him, I've never seen him touch on any of those topics. And even if he does touch on them, it doesn't mean he has a well-developed theology. I fully recognize people can get the right beliefs without intellectual grounding - I said that in an earlier post.