Eric, you say, “additionally, why would I need to apologize for reporting a fact, regardless of how palatable it was to you?”

That’s the problem, Eric, it wasn’t a fact.  You posted what you claimed was a quote, but turned out not to be a quote.  You state things that are not true and claim, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that they are facts.  In journalism that’s call that libel, most people just call it lying.

You later state “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.”

Except, again, that is not true.  You didn’t quote Rick Warren, you made up something inflammatory and posted it as a quote from Warren when if fact he never said that.

And up to this point you have refused to even acknowledge that your “quote” was in fact not a quote.  You have also refused to apologize even when asked directly several times.

At this point why would you feel that anyone would want to engage in any type of honest discussion with you?  If you just want to trade untruths and accusations we can certainly do that but I don’t believe this is the right forum for that, Ingrid’s website is much more suited for that type of discussion, Ingrid seems to favor exactly this type is misrepresentation and distortion of the truth.

Peter - did you not read the post where I cited the article I was trying to remember?  I’m at a loss for how you can read the statement by RW that if your church is plateaued that some people will have to ‘die or leave’ as not being at least slightly condescending to those folks?  Apparently you’ve never known or talked to those folks who are said need to “die or leave”.

Peter,

I can only conclude that you haven’t read all my comments.  While I mis-remembered the exact quote initially - (I had read it months ago) - I since reposted the exact article I had pulled the quote from.  You are clearly not hearing my opinion on this - because you disagree with it - apparently when you disagree with someone you call their opinion lies and distortions? 

I don’t know how much more clearly I can state that RWs statement about people needing to “die or leave” was a little harsh.

Folks here can continue in ignorance to call a “lie” what is merely my opinion on what RW wrote.  Again - I’m not trying to tear him down - I think he’s a good man - I’ve already stated that - however you are apparently and purposely are ignoring the full context of what I’m saying.

I have neither misquoted, distorted or twisted anything for “my purposes” - simply taking the “die or leave” statement for how it appeared to me - a little harsh to the older folks in our congregations.

And no where did I say RW was “wishing people dead” - and I do know of people who feel like a victim of losing their church to some new church growth philosophies.  Doesn’t make it wrong or right - it’s just how they feel.

As a senior pastor, I too have seen the need for opposition to either change their mind or find another place of worship.  I simply think that could have been stated better in the quotation in question.

I, sir, did not come here to argue - I was initially commenting on the merits of the video clip - but have suddenly been thrust into a position of defending my stated opinions by being called a ‘liar’. 

If opposing opinions are not welcome here - fine - but perhaps you should refrain from calling people liars based soley on the fact that you disagree with them or because they have a different take on an article than you.  Implying that someone is ‘full of themselves’ merely because you disagree them is a little over the top as well.

LOL...perhaps we’re getting somewhere now - yes, feel free to call someone a liar if you know for a fact that they INTENTIONALLY meant to misquote and mislead someone by their words. 

However if they accidently didn’t get the quote exactly right - then corrected it, that is not a lie.  I apologize for not remembering the exact wording in the quote from RW.  Please refrain from stoning an honest mistake.

Let me shorten the quotation to include only “I’m saying some people are going to have to die or leave” - can we agree RW actually said that?

Having established that - am I allowed to interject in this forum that SOME PEOPLE, obviously not your or Wendi, but some people may take that quote, in it’s context, as being a little harsh or oppressive to certain people? 

That’s all I was saying....wow.

I noticed that even RW followed that statement up
with: “That may be brutally blunt”.

Eric, I am sorry for the harsh tone I took earlier.  I believe you were not purposefully misquoting RW.  It just seemed like you were not admitting that the quote was not correct.  RW’s assertion that for some churches to change (if they need to change) some people may have to leave or die is a harsh statement, as Warren acknowledged, but it is true.

Warren isn’t saying that all churches need to change, or that all churches need to follow Purpose Driven models, he’s just stating that for churches that have plateaued and need change it is not easy.

The way you (mis)quoted him made it sound like he was saying churches all needed to be PD. 

I also think the discussion about Warren bashing fits right in with the discussion about oppression.  It seems to me that the “watch dogs” like Ingrid are very much in favor of oppressing Rick Warren or anyone else they disagree with. 

The frustration with what is perceived as RW bashing is that we see it every time Warren’s name is mentioned here.

Nice talking with you,

Eric,

Thank you for acknowledging that you misstated.  Though the conversation was long and sometimes frustrating, I do think it has had value (thanks to Todd for providing the platform). 

Tonight at bible study someone made a comment that reminded me of this discussion.  We were talking about trials and difficulties we all face.  This person “quoted” 1 Cor 10:13, saying “God will not allow us to face a trial that we cannot bear.”

Of course we know that 1 Cor 10:13 actually says, “No TEMPTATION has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be TEMPTED beyond what you can bear. But when you are TEMPTED, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

The book of Acts, church history and even Paul’s own words in 2 Cor 11, make it clear that Christians often face circumstances and trials they (alone) are unable to bear.  And there is a big difference between a trial and a temptation.  The woman’s comment reflects a common misunderstanding about Paul’s words to the Corinthians, and misrepresent Paul’s intentions.

I submit Eric, that your slight change in the wording of RW’s quote, coupled with your opinions about RW’s motives for saying it, misrepresented RW’s intentions.

Consider this scenario: Say you are called to pastor the church I attend.  And say that you and the elders clearly sense from the Lord a particular mission and vision for our church.  But a group of us strongly believe in a seeker sensitive, PD type model for church, which you and the elders equally strongly disagree with.  As the church’s called and anointed leaders, you lead in a manner that does not feel right to the group I’m part of.  Our group sets up a meeting with you.  We bring our PDL books and read you many quotes from it to make a case that our church needs to have a 40-Days campaign.  We begin talking about how our weekend services are not sensitive to seekers.  Finally we issue an ultimatum.  We tell you that we cannot stay in the church if you don’t begin leading in the way we describe, which we believe is biblical and right . . . and you don’t.  I doubt that you give in to us, so how do you advise us?  Even if you don’t say these exact words, our choices are simple, right?  Submit to your leadership, leave (or die)?

When we tell people about our meeting, we say “Pastor Eric said that he didn’t care about seekers.” When explaining your position about seeker sensitive services, you probably didn’t actually say “I don’t care about seekers,” but through the filter of our passions and strongly held beliefs, that is what we heard from you.

I submit that that is what you did when reading the Pastors.com article from RW.  Because you so strongly disagree with his methods, you read between the lines motives that may or may not have been there when RW penned those words. 

We all must be cautious about how our biases influence the way we view reality, especially when the “reality” we’re talking about someone else’s heart.  I’ve learned that the best way to guard against this is to remind myself that the “reality” I see is more than likely my perception of reality . . . and nothing more.

Wendi

CS, the article does not clearly say there even was an ultimatum.  What it said was that for churches that need to change (not all do) some (those who refuse to change) may have to leave or die before the church can successfully make the necessary changes.  It was specifically about churches that have plateau’d and are in need of change.

NOTHING to do with PD models or even with Rick Warrens methods, it just happened to be Warren saying what many others agree with.  Change is not easy for some people and some people will resist and ultimately refuse to change, even when it is necessary.

I don’t think it matters to Wendi’s example who issued the ultimatum or even IF there is an ultimatum, just that the leadership felt change was necessary (or not) and some people disagreed.

I believe this blog is supposed to be about the Keller video, but since most have chosen to write about Rick Warren --- here is my two cents.

I think I know where Rick Warren was coming from by his comments, but I also think the words he chose left him open to be misconstrued as insensitive (or dare I say “oppressive” --- that seems to be a popular word to throw around these days although I’m not really sure what it means).  It could be interpreted that he is implying that those who disagree with a change can be marginalized or ignored.  Again, I’m not saying that was his intent, but it could be construed that way.  What one says is objective, but what one implies is subjective.

How you make changes in a church is just as important as the change itself.  Too much change too fast without getting people on board and sharing the vision for that change can be poisonous to a church, even if the change is necessary.  I’ve seen it happen.

thank you ww