 |
 |
Giving Rick Warren the What Not…
Orginally published on Thursday, June 05, 2008 at 7:57 AM
by Todd Rhoades
Last month, Rick Warren invited a good number of his online detractors to his Purpose Driven Conference. When Bob DeWaay got his invitation, he declined (even though Saddleback offered to pay his travel and entire trip). When asked to reconsider, Bob says, "since the Bible says that we should be ready to give a reason for our hope in the gospel (1Peter 3:15) I decided to go." He writes an article (entitled "My Visit to Ask Rick Warren to Preach Christ) over at the Christian Worldview Network. Here's how he starts off:
"I arrived in time on Thursday to hear the last hour and a half of the conference, which featured Warren promoting his PEACE plan. It was typical of many other Warren speeches I have listened to. He spoke about meeting with world leaders and how he plans to help them solve problems in their countries. He gave reasons why 1 billion Christians are the best hope of solving the world’s biggest problems. What was lacking was any commitment to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly to all people. That was exactly what I planned to urge Warren to do when I met him. Listening to his speech only reinforced that commitment.
After the speech (and some seriously loud, ear-splitting music) I was able to meet up with fellow Warren critic, Mr. Chris Rosebrough, who had attended each day of the conference. We waited for about an hour while Warren held a press conference—he eventually appeared for our meeting with about a half dozen others.
At the beginning of our meeting Warren asked us to share our “stories” with him. Both of us had come out of bad doctrine and faulty movements to become gospel centric. I shared my experience of learning church growth theory at seminary and showed him a first edition copy of his book The Purpose Driven Church that was required reading for me in 1996. I also shared how discouraging it was to study church growth teaching when our inner city church was shrinking at the time. I shared how I found hope and inspiration from John MacArthur and that I chose his ministry model rather than church growth theory..."
You can read the rest of the article here. I’d love to hear what you think, good or bad…
This post has been viewed 2372 times so far.
There are 60 Comments:
Hi... I'm Todd Rhoades. I'm a Christ-follower, husband, father and I love to connect leaders with other leaders. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step on Twitter.
MondayMorningInsight.com | PO Box 446 | Bryan, OH 43506 |
-
Posted by
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 9:34 AM
-
Posted by
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 9:55 AM
-
Posted by
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 10:35 AM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 10:55 AM
-
Posted by
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 11:22 AM
-
Posted by
Monday, June 09, 2008 at 12:42 PM
-
Posted by
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM
-
Posted by
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
-
Posted by
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
-
Posted by
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Post Your Comments:So, let me see if I get this right. Bob DeWaay is right and Rick Warren is wrong.
Can’t BD admit that he (BD) might not be right about everything theological? Give me a break!
Oh, I forgot-God has appointed a few people in the world to correct all of the rest of us.
Everybody is right about some theological issues and everybody is wrong about some theological issues. The only person I have ever met who had it all correct was: JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why can’t all of us get off of our little pedastels, admit our stupidity, humble ourselves, and quit criticizing each other.
But, I guess the critics have nothing better to do.
BTW: If RW is wrong, guess what? God is capable of telling him that he is wrong.
Some in this “batter’s box” accuse RW of presenting the Gospel in an inoffensive way.
So, would all of you RW critics suggest that the woman who was caught in adultery receive a royal “slam” from Jesus or be “stoned to death by the pharisees? The law required for her to be killed.
But, what would Jesus do? All eyes were on Him at that moment. Would He call for her to be stoned to death?
No, He says: “Go and sin no more”. He made the “gospel” inoffensive to her. No one needed to make her feel any worse than what she already felt.
So, go ahead and attack RW for being inoffensive. If you do, you will have to criticize Jesus.
This is a response to Kevin Bussey’s post on
Thursday, June 05, 2008 at 9:58 AM: “Sam,
Where is Rick lifting himself up? Also 20K baptisms represent changed lives. How do you know they aren’t real conversions? Why don’t Christians quit attacking each other and preach the gospel?”
Response: Twenty thousand baptisms might represent 20k changed lives....and on the other hand, they might not even represent a changed set of underwear. A church that my family left, baptised over 400 one year without seeing an increase in Sunday School attendance, Worship attendance, or in giving. And it hasn’t happened like that in just one isolated experience. But, this is what happens when the gospel being preached equates to “Just pray this simple prayer and everything will be alright.” The fact is that the church has lost the concept of what it really means to get saved and to be saved. Sadly, in many instances, we are preaching “another” gospel. You can be baptized until every fish in the creek knows your pants size and it won’t mean a thing without the faith fo stand and say that Jesus is the Only Way. And this, is something that Osteen and Graham DID NOT do when given perfect opportunities on Larry King’s CNN show. All we heard was mess like “Well Larry, I’m not going to play God and tell this group or that group........ or ......... well Larry, that’s just between them and God.” Hogwash!!! If Jesus said it, then you don’t have to back up and be afraid to repeat it. The Cross of Jesus Christ was not user-friendly. It was brutal. And sometimes, so is taking the truth and just laying it out there like it is.
Tim Lett writes [The fact is that the church has lost the concept of what it really means to get saved and to be saved.] AMEN!
[You can be baptized until every fish in the creek knows your pants size and it won’t mean a thing without the faith fo stand and say that Jesus is the Only Way.] Not to make it harder, but isn’t that only a step? The point is to follow Jesus, not just mentally assent to a list of distinctives and doctrines about who he is, which is where many very orthodox Christians leave it. We need to follow Him, and not just believe in Him, but believe HIM and what HE believes, which would lead us to do the things he does.
Jesus said “follow me” when he called his disciples, he didn’t say “study me”. RW’s PEACE plan (the first leg of which is to plant churches) is an attempt by him and many others to follow Jesus. I applaud it!
kc:
“BTW: If RW is wrong, guess what? God is capable of telling him that he is wrong.”
God is also totally capable of leaving him exactly where he is and letting him continue teaching for the next 60 years.
We have a duty to examine teaching in light of Scripture and speaking the truth about it, even naming names of people who are not preaching the Gospel.
“So, would all of you RW critics suggest that the woman who was caught in adultery receive a royal “slam” from Jesus or be “stoned to death by the pharisees? The law required for her to be killed.”
Let’s examine this further. In this case, the woman knew well the full transgression of the Law and her corresponding punishment. Then Jesus offered her grace. This fits with God’s model of giving the Law to the proud, and grace to the humble. (James 4:6)
What we are seeing in preaching like Warren’s is that he does not deliver this complete formula. Many times, in producing “how-to” lists of living, he inadvertently resurrects the Law by giving people commands of what to do and what to not do, bypassing grace. I recommend reading http://www.extremetheology.com and the comments on Warren’s recent summit.
--
CS
Funny, isn’t it? All of us are experts on RW and Bill Hybels.
CS: yes, God could leave RW alone but only if he was stubborn before God. I don’t see that in RW.
Dear God: why are we still obsessing about RW?
Dear kc: it is because everyone is jealous and can’t look in the mirror and see their own failures.
CS writes:
“Now, I’m not a lawyer, nor did Warren explain more in-depth about the use of the programs in companies, but this sends up a big red flag. With EOE laws, companies generally cannot use religious materials as a part of their corporate activities.”
I am a lawyer, and the use of religious materials in the private workplace is not per se proscribed.
Brent:
“I am a lawyer, and the use of religious materials in the private workplace is not per se proscribed.”
Thank you for the clarification. Would you agree with my assertion that, in general, managers who make their employees participate in religious programs are setting both themselves and the company up for liability?
I also took the time and went back to listen again to Warren’s sermon this weekend. What he said was, “Employees at company X have done the 40 Days of Purpose(TM).” This is kind of false advertising. I could say that employees of such-and-such corporation regularly enjoy booze and pornography, and that statement would hold similar ground, because there could be two or three employees who do so. By using the company name like that, it sounded more impressive than how he made it out to be.
On the other hand, he stated that New York City itself would be doing 40 Days of Purpose in one of the coming seasons. There I have to wonder about how the endorsement of a quasi-religious program will be sanctioned by civil government.
--
CS
That depends on what you mean by “religious program.” Generally, employers may require employees to participate in training programs even where Scripture verses are used to support the training principles, so long as an employee is not required to adhere to a religious practice, attend religious services, receive religious training or participate in activities which violate the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
CS: Also, to nitpick words is little crazy. An employer can ask if employees want to voluntarily go through the book. I think you read into the company is using the book to say they are forcing it down everyone’s throat or even using it as a training guide. Also to nitpick the comment about a citywide campaign and try to make it say he is saying all of New York is doing it is just crazy. He was saying that churches in the New York area who want to participate want to do a city wide campaign at the same time. It seems to me you are looking for ways to discredit Rick Warren instead of challenging a concern about his gospel presentation. It comes across as a personal attack instead of a true concern for the gospel IMHO.
Page 3 of 3 pages
« First < 1 2 3