Eric –

I love respectful disagreement within the body of Christ and in no way suggested that everyone who disagrees with me, or you or RW is a crusader.  But when someone dedicates their life and ministry to taking down the person with whom they disagree . . . that is indeed crusading.  Ingrid and others have made their life mission crusading AGAINST RW and others, which is a far cry from the mission assignment we’ve all been given by Jesus.

RW on the other hand, has for the most part ignored the flood of unsubstantiated and out-of-context critics, keeping his eye squarely on the universal Christian mission.  He demonstrates this (in abundance through his written and spoken word) by his passion to reach the lost and his care for the poor and disenfranchised.  Furthermore, he has shown a great deal of humility in the way he has leveraged his significant international platform to point people to enormous global needs, which the American church has the resources to solve.

And also, please cite the exact source and context of the so-called quote you attribute to RW.

Wendi

[You can find the quote on Warren’s own pastors.com website at: ]http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1]

Huh? I find nothing objectionable in that article. If you want to change your church, some people will have to either die or leave seems to be the gist of the article. What’s wrong with that sentiment? It’s true. One day I might have to be the guy who has to die or leave for a church to stay relevant to the people it’s trying to reach…

This is one of those cases where I’m afraid, once again, RW has been misquoted or quoted out of context.

Peter:

“Huh? I find nothing objectionable in that article. If you want to change your church, some people will have to either die or leave seems to be the gist of the article. What’s wrong with that sentiment? It’s true. One day I might have to be the guy who has to die or leave for a church to stay relevant to the people it’s trying to reach…”

That’s the rub.  There are those who believe that churches have to stay relevant to the culture by changing their methods, at the sacrifice of members, perhaps through adopting things like the Purpose Driven (TM) programs.  Then there are those who believe that churches do not have to stay relevant to the culture or change methods, who do not sacrifice any members in the process, because the Bible and Gospel are enough in any circumstance.  You can guess by the wording of my thoughts on which side of this matter I stand.

--
CS

CS,

First off, let’s admit the ridiculousness (dare I say “sin") of misquoting Rick (unless you can find a link to where he actually said “those who resist the pd movement will have to leave the church or die off"). The argument dies right there, and yes, I’m rather irritated at this constant misquoting. It’s what I’ve been belly-aching about all along, and the fact that it’s done again on these pages adds fuel to the fire of those who have legitimate complaints about those who are bashing RW, based on misinformation that they themselves disseminate.

Second, the article you cited was about churches that plateau, and what to do to change things when it becomes obvious to leadership that things need to change. It was NOT about purpose-driven ANYTHING. And, there are NO purpose-driven programs. “purpose-driven” is NOT a program. Never was. I don’t think he even mentioned “purpose-driven” in the article you referenced.

The argument totally falls apart on both these counts, and I think I’m done engaging it. You don’t appear to be listening (except possibly for a “proof-text” to go further on the attack), and you are simply continuing the same straw-man arguments that have been mentioned time and time again by those who have a pre-set agenda and seem to be willing to say anything to further it, whether it’s accurate or not.

Last thought from me. You write [Then there are those who believe that churches do not have to stay relevant to the culture or change methods, who do not sacrifice any members in the process, because the Bible and Gospel are enough in any circumstance.] I’d put RW in that category.

Wendi:

“Can you see yourself sliding down the slippery slope Keller is talking about?  Because you disagree with RW, you hunt for and concoct theological or biblical problems that aren’t in order to be sure he remains the enemy.  If he’s just a Christian brother whose methods you disagree with, he’s not the enemy you need to protect us all from. “

You’ve got it backwards.  It would be wrong to capriciously disagree with someone and then try to find faults, and I think you and I can both agree to that.  That is nit-picking and rude.

I disagree with Warren because of the theological, doctrinal, and Biblical problems he has in his writings, speeches, interviews, and sermons.  Over the years, starting with receiving a copy of PDL for my birthday from my grandmother, I went at things with an open mind and heart, and examined things in light of Scripture.  I found that many things ran contrary to the Bible, I did additional research about him, his church, and his programs, and then I determined that his teachings are wrong.

--
CS

A Sinner:

“Who determines how a teaching, doctrine, theology is correct?”

You take the teaching, doctrine, or theology, look for what the Bible says about it, in light of grammar and historical information, and make a conclusion about if it is right or wrong.  It may not work all the time for the most fine details, but it should bring out the most obvious things about what is right or not.

For example, if someone said that Jesus was never crucified, we can look in the Bible, see where it says he was, and then declare that that person was wrong.

“If two people use their God-given reason to analyze the same Scripture and come back with two different answers, who decides who is correct?”

This thinking creates doctrinal relativism, and leads to cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism.  If your answer can be seen the same as anyone else’s answer, then you can get away with interpreting things any way you see fit.  Which leads to…

“When we realize that God is the only one with that answer, and we treat those who disagree with us with Christian love and tolerance, then the Kingdom of God grows.”

In this case, you have taken an answer from the Bible you believe is right and applied it to something.  If we use your standard of all answers being the same, then your statement here could suffer a logical hit, when someone else says that no one, not even God has that answer.

--
CS

Wendi:

“Neither you nor Eric apologizes or even acknowledges that we have caught you misrepresenting and misquoting.”

I posted the article because I knew that was the one to which Eric was referring and likely going to cite as his source.  So, I apologize for providing a source that someone else was likely about to use, and perhaps following in suit when it comes to using it.

That comment aside, I’ll stand by my other assertions about Warren being wrong with proper contextual quotes and citations.

--
CS

Wendi - additionally, why would I need to apologize for reporting a fact, regardless of how palatable it was to you?

CS - I don’t think I misquoted at all - I had read that months ago and was recalling from memory - but after seeing the exact quote was pretty close to exact and in context if you read the whole thing.

I quoted RW in the first place because I was making a point that these type of ‘superior’ statements are coming from both sides of this debate - and its wrong.

I sense MUCH venom from some here towards any differing viewpoints.  Apparently some folks aren’t as open minded as they’d like Ingrid to be.

Leonard - because what I said was true would mean that Christians ARE practicing Romans 12.

Eric, It’s real simple. You write [why would I need to apologize for reporting a fact, regardless of how palatable it was to you?] You didn’t report a fact, you misquoted an individual badly. Dare I say it? You are trying to whitewash what is essentially a lie.

You apparently conveniently remembered him saying something other than what he actually said in such a fashion as to support your own pre-made conclusions. Does this mean you are so much more interested in condemning him than in exploring the truth that you can’t even see the truth?

If you can’t see what’s wrong with what you did, and your attempt to explain it away, then there is really no use in debating you.

Again, this latest experience has only confirmed my experience that those who are “bashing” Rick are on one hand doing it with misquotes, quotes out of context, and misinformation - and on the other hand we have theological nitpicking, where anyone that doesn’t agree with an individual’s specific expression of western reformed theology is branded heretical.

Saddleback’s statement of beliefs can be found at http://saddleback.com/flash/believe2.html

There is nothing non-orthodox about it.

This discussion is becoming pointless, as those who are criticizing Rick definitely need to take a good listen again to what TIm Keller said in the video above.

Wendi - your not only completely wrong but a name caller as well.  Please say nothing bad about “Ingrid” anymore as you are no better.

My quote from RW WAS in context - RW is the PD proponent - that’s his method of church growth - he didn’t say ‘those who resist the PD” verbatim, but that was the implication when he was telling pastors who are implementing his program what needs to happen if the church has platued - i.e., people at your church won’t except the church’s new direction.

I, madam, am a lot of things but I’m not a liar.

Eric,

With all due respect, I do NOT see how you can not see that you twisted RWs words to say something he did not. Honestly, I can’t even fathom it. You put in quotes words from Rick that he never said. How in heaven’s name is that not misquoting? Will you consider the possibility that because more than one person here has had issue with what you wrote, you might have been out of line?

I’m all done with this one. It’s getting nowhere.