Rick Warren at the Vatican: "We’re More Effective and Better Together Than We Are Apart"

Aleteia ^ | 11/24/14 | Diane Montagna

[marshmallow]

Saddleback Church founder speaks at Vatican-hosted Humanum Colloquium.

Pastor Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church—an evangelical megachurch located in Lake Forest, California—was among the featured presenters at last week's Vatican-hosted Colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman. Also known as the Humanum Colloquium, the conference gathered leaders and scholars from various Christian and non-Christian religions across the globe November 17-19 to examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between man and woman in marriage.

Warren, one of the most prominent evangelical leaders in the world, is perhaps most widely known as the author of the bestselling books The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.

Aleteia's Rome correspondent sat down with Pastor Warren at the conclusion of the Humanum Colloquium to discuss his experience at the interreligious event; the six points of what he calls a "Purpose Driven Marriage"; and his first trip across the Tiber.

Pastor Warren, what has been your impression of this week’s colloquium on the complementarity of man and woman in marriage?

I think it was great because you heard people not only from the streams of Christianity but also non-Christian religions showing solidarity with us about what we call the biblical definition of marriage: one man and one woman for life.

That’s a good thing. Right now in the world, the minority view is getting the majority of press, and you just don’t hear the fact that the vast majority of people believe that marriage is what it’s always been since the Creation: one man and one woman for life.

What have been some of the highlights of the Humanum Colloquium?

Rabbi [Jonathan] Sacks is a friend of mine, and his message was outstanding. [Jacqueline] Rivers’ message was just outstanding. Sr. Prudence was just fantastic. She is so brilliant.

[Resettozero]

Although he did for a while, Rick Warren no longer speaks as a leader of Christians in America as does a pope for the RCC.

[piusv]

A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

-Mortalium Animos, On Religious Unity, Pope Pius XI, 1928

[vladimir998]

More important and definitive would be: Pope St. Pius X, Letter Our Apostolic Mandate on Society and Interreligious Cooperation (1910). There might be a copy online somewhere.

[SpirituTuo]

Since when does the Supreme Pontiff, duly elected in Conclave, cease speaking for the Roman Catholic Church?

[vladimir998]

“Since when does the Supreme Pontiff, duly elected in Conclave, cease speaking for the Roman Catholic Church?”

That’s NOT what Resettozero is saying or even implying. He says the pope DOES speak for Catholics while Rick Warren doesn’t speak for [Protestant] Christians in America any more.

[SpirituTuo]

My apologies, I misread what he wrote

[.45 Long Colt]

Rick never spoke for Protestants because he has never been a Protestant. He was, and ostensibly is, an evangelical of the mushy, compromised, Message Bible, praise band, Jesusy love song, goat baptizing, navel-gazing, cheesy drama, short pep-talk self-improvement sermon, manmade church growth, loyalty oath, coffee and bagel bar, mega-church wing.

Historically, Protestants were (and remain) united around a set of rock-ribbed doctrinal beliefs, few of which Warren holds. He’s a Protestant only in the sense that he’s non-Catholic. However, he has championed Catholics and Catholic theology, much like Chuck Colson, far more than he has historic Protestantism. He paid a little lip-service to Jonathan Edwards a few years ago, seemingly to curry favor with John Piper, but there is no evidence he ever held to the core tenets of Edwards’ theology. Warren and his ilk take Protestants like me to task. They know better than our forefathers. They are smart and have a new better way.

Rick is brilliant...and very dangerous.

[vladimir998]

“Rick never spoke for Protestants because he has never been a Protestant.”

Actually he is a Protestant. Other Protestants may not like that, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is a Protestant.

[.45 Long Colt]

If you believe that you don’t know the first thing about historic Protestantism. He’s not protesting anything because he agrees with the core free-will theology of Rome. Historic Protestants do not believe that theology. Protestants believe Rome is apostate whereas Rick believes Roman Catholicism is simply another expression of Christianity. Rick has vocally championed at least one book about “coming home” to Rome. The list of differences between Rick and historic Protestants is L O N G.

[Alex Murphy]

Warren, one of the most prominent evangelical leaders in the world, is perhaps most widely known as the author of the bestselling books The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life. Aleteia's Rome correspondent sat down with Pastor Warren at the conclusion of the Humanum Colloquium to discuss his experience at the interreligious event; the six points of what he calls a "Purpose Driven Marriage"; and his first trip across the Tiber.

There are few things in the world that Rick loves more than free publicity.

[vladimir998]

“If you believe that you don’t know the first thing about historic Protestantism.”

The first thing to know about “historic Protestantism” is that it isn’t very historic.

“He’s not protesting anything because he agrees with the core free-will theology of Rome.”

Many Protestants believe in free-will. Being a Protestant who believes in free will does not make you unProtestant. It just makes you a particular kind of Protestant. These Protestants are just as undeniably Protestant as any other Protestant: http://nafwb.org/

“Historic Protestants do not believe that theology.”

Again, the first thing to know about “Historic Protestants” is that they aren’t very historic.

“Protestants believe Rome is apostate whereas Rick believes Roman Catholicism is simply another expression of Christianity.”

What Protestants believe about a city is immaterial. What Warren believes about “Roman Catholicism” is essentially immaterial as well.

“Rick has vocally championed at least one book about “coming home” to Rome.”

A number of Protestants have lauded Catholic books (such as Pope Benedict’s series on Jesus) so, again, that is immaterial.

“The list of differences between Rick and historic Protestants is L O N G.”

Again, the first thing to know about “historic Protestants” is that they aren’t very historic.

Warren is nothing other than a Protestant who upsets many other Protestants just like Joel Osteen does. At the same time, many other Protestants were disgusted by Jimmy Swaggart or Fred Phelps when he was alive and kicking. Protestants is an enormous spectrum of error. It should not surprise anyone that Protestants on one spectrum are offended or outraged by someone on another end of the spectrum. All that being said, however, it cannot be logically denied that Protestantism exists, covers a huge spectrum of error and that Rick Warren is a Protestant.

[John Leland 1789]

In our county seat of 6 Thousand people, a half dozen churches went through the "The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life." books, workbooks, literature, and classes, series, etc., when all that was at the peak of popularity.

There's been no positive spiritual changes, no revival or anything like that, in the town or its environs that anyone can document.

But I'm sure Mr. Warren did enjoy the royalties though.

[.45 Long Colt]

Whatever. I don’t feel like debating it. We will never agree.

Botton line for me: Rick Warren lining up to kiss the pope’s toe is disgraceful, but since he’s never been a true Protestant in the historic sense of that term, hardly surprising.

[avenir]

Well said, .45 Long Colt! I hate the Catholic/Protestant reduction of God’s precious gift of Jesus Christ, though. God IS...He is not an ISM.

[.45 Long Colt]

No he’s certainly not an ISM. I don’t like those ISMs much either. I’m considered evangelical, and in a broad sense that’s true, but that term holds little real meaning. I have nothing in common with Jimmy Carter, yet his liberal Baptist faith is supposedly “evangelical.”

I’m called a Calvinist, but all that really means in my case is I hold to the Doctrines of Grace, as did historic Presbyterians and Baptists. So while I appreciate Calvin, I don’t hold his views on baptism among other things. And I was a “Calvinist” for years before I read the first word Calvin wrote.

These terms are merely shorthand ways to describe sets of beliefs so we can have a discussion, but they can be wildly misunderstood and abused, much as the historic term “Protestant” is misunderstood and abused in our day. Many people labeled “Protestant” today are much more comfortable with Rome than they would be with “Protestants” from earlier eras.

[Resettozero]

Actually he is a Protestant.

Your error possibly derives from confusing a non-RC Christian with a Protestant.

Protestant is nowadays more of an RCC term applied to non-RCC worshipers of God than it is a Christian "What we believe" designation. There are different groups of RCC members. There are also many groups (fellowships, assemblies) of believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ who do not consider themselves protesters against only RCC anti-Christian teachings.

But, yes of course, there are still some mainline Protestant denominations. In recent years at least, two or more of these Protestant groups have been following the lead of today's pope more than they have the unchanging Lord Jesus Christ.

[vladimir998]

“Whatever. I don’t feel like debating it. We will never agree.”

It’s not about agreeing between the two of us. It’s about agreeing with the truth which would exist even if you and I didn’t exist.

“Botton line for me: Rick Warren lining up to kiss the pope’s toe is disgraceful, but since he’s never been a true Protestant in the historic sense of that term, hardly surprising.”

There is no “historic Protestantism” really anyway. And Warren isn’t “lining up to kiss the pope’s toe” either.

[vladimir998]

“Your error possibly derives from confusing a non-RC Christian with a Protestant.”

I posted no error whatsoever and nothing I said derived “from confusing a non-RC Christian with a Protestant” for I have never once made that mistake in my entire life.

“Protestant is nowadays more of an RCC term applied to non-RCC worshipers of God than it is a Christian “What we believe” designation.”

False. I apply the term Protestant only to Protestants. I have never applied it to non-Protestants. Not even once.

“There are different groups of RCC members.”

False. There are no “different groups”. There are Churches. A Byzantine Catholic is Catholic but he is not Roman. A Russian Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a Catholic, but he is not Roman. These are sui juris Churches. There are no “different groups”.

“There are also many groups (fellowships, assemblies) of believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ who do not consider themselves protesters against only RCC anti-Christian teachings.”

All Protestants are still Protestants no matter what sect or ecclesial community they belong to. A Methodist is a Protestant, a Baptist is a Protestant, a non-denominational is a Protestant. Whether or not they “protest” against anyone is no longer relevant to the actual existence of their Protestantism.

“But, yes of course, there are still some mainline Protestant denominations. In recent years at least, two or more of these Protestant groups have been following the lead of today’s pope more than they have the unchanging Lord Jesus Christ.”

Protestants always followed their own desires. They never really followed Jesus in the first place. If they did, then there would not be so much formal fragmentation and indifferentism among them now would there?

[Resettozero]

They never really followed Jesus in the first place.

In your zeal to defend all things Catholic, Roman and otherwise, in your ignorance, you are stomping on thin ice.

I sincerely urge you to reconsider your statement.

BTW, nothing I posted to you is false; you just don't believe it's true.