Rick Warren

Well, I just could not let some of these remarks by PAIDAGOG go by.


PAID: It is probably overstating the case to claim that RW never preaches the gospel.
RA: Thank you.


PAID: Undoubtedly, there are allusions to it in various forms or one may point to a certain statement and call it a reference to the gospel.
RA: IMHO, this is your way of begrudgingly admitting that Warren is not a full-blown heretic. But you use language that seeks to still paint him as less than a basic, conservative, evangelical, Southern Baptist. You are working very hard to still keep him in some kind of compromising camp—i.e., he only makes "allusions" to the gospel in "various forms" and there are only isolated statements that one can point to and "call it" a reference to the gospel. Really, friend, c'mon. Either he is preaching the gospel, or he is not preaching it—period. That what scripture commands us to do. We have no biblical demands about having to preach it in a certain way (except in love, and with gentleness and respect), or having to preach a set number of times under particular circumstances.

If you read Warren's Easter 2004 sermon (http://abanes.com/warrenpreachesgospel.html), you will not find mere "allusions" or subtle "references" to the gospel. You will find hardcore, straight-forward declarations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the cross—read it for yourself. Even in his book The Purpose Driven Life, his comments are not "allusions" to the gospel. The truth is that it does not take very long to tell people the gospel. I can do it—and have done it—in about 2-3 sentences (and this includes making some fairly in-depth point). I was just on a secular radio show yesterday and was defending the faith for a very considerate atheist. Within my conversation about death, tragedy, and human suffering, I slipped in the gospel using only 1-2 sentences—very quick—but he got it.

I do not understand this preoccupation some people have with droning on, and on, and on, and on, about "gospel" as if you need to say "sin" 15 times, "cross" 32 times, and "hell" at LEAST 50 times before "the gospel" has REALLY been preached. Well, that's wrong. It's arbitrary. It's unbiblical. I've been in services where after a worship set, the preacher came up and said. "There are some people here tonight who need to accept Jesus as their savior. He died on the cross for your sins and rose again from the dead so that you would not need to go to hell. I want you to come forward right now."

And BAM! Fifteen people stepped forward. There you have it—the gospel—plain and simply. No big deal. It is N OT how many times we say something. Salvation comes by preaching the simple good news and it is the Holy Spirit that works through WHATEVER we say and HOWEVER much we say—as long as it is indeed the gospel. And Warren does preach the gospel. God has worked through it and that is why so many have come to Christ.


PAID: Rather, the point of contention is whether RW consistently preaches the gospel message as opposed a watered down culture friendly kind of message.
RA: This is a very interesting, and conveniently vague term you use "consistently." How do you mean this? If Warren happens to take one weekend to preach on marriage because he is concerned about that issue, now suddenly has he fallen away from being "consistent"? Must he mention in ever single message the word "hell" a set number of times to be "consistent"? I believe that what you are really saying here should read as follows: "[T]he point of contention is whether RW preaches the way I am comfortable with preaching, the way I have always heard preaching, and the way I have always thought preaching should sound, including the use of certain words/terms as often as possible." Such a position, of course, is supported nowhere in the Bible.


PAID: My question concerns RW’s view of sin.
RA: okay.


PAID: Of course, you can cite references of his referring to a generic kind of sin.
RA: What in the world does "generic sin" mean???? Sin is sin; missing the mark; wrongdoing; failure to meet God's standards of righteousness; anything not of faith; deeds contrary to God's law—ya know . . . .sin.


PAID: I would like to hear RA answer the following questions: 1. Does RW preach a consistent emphasis against sin and sinning?
RA: yes. you should read his chapters 26 - 27 in The Purpose Driven Life. They address sin and temptation. For example, he states: "Temptation only becomes sin when you give in to it" (p. 205). And in sermons, Warren has preached—too many times for me to count—about sin and its affect on our lives.


PAID: 2. What does RW preach as the penalty of sin?
RA: Well, for the unbeliever: a) hell; b) a really messed up life. For the believer: a) a hinderance to our intimate fellowship with God; b) a lack of God's power in our life; and c) usually various problems that arise as natural fallout from sin (i.e., you commit adultery, you pay the price—marital disharmony, guilt, divorce, etc.).


PAID: 3. Does he specifically and clearly state that men are sinners who are on their way to Hell?
RA: Yes. For example, "If you choose to be separate from God now, you will choose to be separated from God for eternity, and that is called 'Hell.' You say, 'Rick, is there a real hell? Is hell a real place?' Well, of course there is. Jesus talked about it. Some people say: 'Well, I don’t believe in hell.' Well, that doesn’t make it not real" (Rick Warren, “The Foundation for Happiness: Exploding The Myths That Make Us Miserable,” Aug. 21, 1994). And also, "The Bible says people are going to live forever one of two places, heaven or hell. You were made to live forever. When you die, you're not going to just die. Your body's going to die and it's going to decay. But you're not going to die. God made human beings with a spirit. You're going to go one of two places - heaven or hell" (Rick Warren, "Your Mission On Earth," part 4 of 5, March 24, 1996). Saddleback Church's website explains, “Every person, although endowed with the image of God, inherited a disobedient heart from Adam, the very first man. This attitude of disobedience (called sin in the Bible)—unless rectified through Christ—forever keeps man from forming a relationship with his Creator.”


PAID: 4. Does he name sin and call specific actions and thoughts (i.e. lust, covetousness, drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, lying, stealing, hatred, etc.) sinful?
RA: Yes. In my book I supply all of this information. You're asking questions that stem directly from the many false accusations that have appeared with regard to what Warren does and does not preach. This particular question seems related to the oft-repeated lie that Warren does not name sins. Consider this sermon excerpt:

"God’s standard has never changed. Premarital sex is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Living together without getting married is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Adultery, having an affair, being unfaithful to somebody you’re married to is unacceptable to God. It always has been and it always will be. Homosexuality is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Pornography is unacceptable to God. It always has been. It always will be. Every one of those things brings a judgment" (Rick Warren, “Maintaining Moral Purity,” part 8, May 25, 1997).


PAID: 5. Specifically, what is the gospel that RW preaches? Define it.
RA: Are you serious???? Fine. Go here and read (http://abanes.com/warrenpreachesgospel.html).


PAID: 6. What does he teach about salvation?
RA: Go here and read (http://abanes.com/warrenpreachesgospel.html).


PAID: Repentance?
RA: Regarding repentance, Warren declares: "Do I ever preach repentance? Of course I preach repentance. That’s the basic message of the New Testament—repentance. . . . You ask, 'How do you preach on a negative passage?' With a humble, loving attitude—not superior to your hearers. We’re all in the same boat. When you preach on a negative passage you confess, 'I’ve fallen short here, too.' Change the pronouns from 'you' to 'we'" (Rick Warren, “How to Communicate to Change Lives,” part 1, session 3, 1997).


PAID: Belief only? Pray and ask Jesus into your heart? What?
RA: Is this a trick question? Warren teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone. NOT just "belief" as it says in James about demons who believe there is one God. But rather, a surrender to Christ in whom you have placed your faith and trust. And no, he does not add any "works" to this biblical teaching, but does teach that good works and evidence of a true saving faith will be seen by all (read James). In other words, Warren teaches the basic, biblical, evangelical view of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. 'kay?


PAID: He writes quite well but it is pure pabulum. He is smooth and convincing.
RA: Pabulum? Hmmmm. Looked fairly substantive to me. Exactly what would you have considered not pabulum? I can only guess that substantive to you simply means, and always will mean, critical of Rick Warren. Oh well.


PAID: However, there are no persuasive arguments—just a well-written, urbane style that soothes away the doubts.
RA: No persuasive arguments? Hmmm. How about the fact that I used quotes from Warren himself to contradict what others have said about what he teaches. Again, oh well.


PAID: He has everyone salivating all over him.
RA: yuck. :—0


PAID: And the ladies were positively swooning. After reading poor Richard’s web site, [uncalled for remark edited].
RA: Uhm, well . . . . no comment, except to say this is really insulting, and NOT to me.


PAID: Richard, I trust you will stay and fence awhile. I ain’t sorry for anything I said. [Cool]
RA: Oh, I'll hang out for a bit.


PAID: One of my issues with RW is his treatment of Scripture. Whereas I am fairly certain that he would profess a high regard for Scripture, his handling and use of Scriptures belies this.
RA: First, I don't think you mean "belies." I think you mean to say something more along the lines of "contradicts" this or "negates" this. Second, his handling of scripture does not negate or contradict his high view of scripture. As I believe I noted in my multi-part post, Warren uses scripture no worse that many pastors—who happen to be human. Please go back and read what I said on this issue.


PAID: One can detect certain post-modern influences. The post-modern view of truth is experiential and relative.
RA: Well, you could not be more off base with this assertion. Warren a post-modernist? Your assumption is hysterical. From my interview with Warren:

" Postmodernism has never created anything. It is only destructive. It deconstructs. It cannot build anything, and so it will be dead in a matter of years. It cannot last. It is a fad. But it is so like the church to jump on the bandwagon just as everyone is jumping off. Postmodernism is just a little, dinky, tiny sliver of young to middle-age, college-educated, affluent white people in America. . . . postmodernism is totally relativistic because they say there are no absolutes. And that’s why it is incompatible with Christianity. It’s just incompatible. You cannot say that there are no absolutes"

Friend, please, stop accusing Warren of things that you really have no right to accuse him of.


PAID: It would seem that RW and RA (Richard Abane) hold similar beliefs.
RA: True. See above statement by Warren.


PAID: A careful reading of Abane’s own view taken from his web site (http://www.abanes.com/abanespurpose.html) supports the supposition: quote: “truth is all around us, but sometimes we miss it. i know that i myself miss it far too often, even when it is right there in front of me, waving furiously to be seen. in other words, like you, i am very human, which means i don't know everything. and yet i do feel called to share with others what I believe to be various truths i have discoverd in my life's journey, especially when it comes to those issues that relate in some way to my faith.”
RA: A "careful reading"? Hardly. You read this with an eye toward assuming the worst—i.e., that I am somehow advocating postmodernism. Wrong. I'm just speaking from my heart to a lost and dying cyberspace world wherein all kinds of people will be visiting my pages. I am saying that as much as I embrace my faith, I don't know everything—duh—because I am not God, nor am I omniscient. My desire is to share with people what I have found to be true and leave the rest in the hands of my sovereign God. I am not saying that what I find true is just true for me. Please do begin reading carefully.


PAID: One cannot fail to note the lack of reference to Scripture.
RA: One also cannot fail to note any references at all to postmodern thought or teachings. I'm not seeking at this point to bang people over the head with scripture. I'm just talking from my heart. Again, what we see here is this common tendency by critics to only accept as valid what THEY feel is the best way to communicate—to the point of saying that if someone does not include scripture references in a short personal message on a web page, then this shows someone's postmodern leanings. Goodness, gracious. What has happened to individuality, not to mention freedom of speech?


PAID: When one really believes Sola Scriptura, his source of truth is Scripture, not his own experiences or his inner self.
RA: Excuse me, but I embrace Sola Scriptura, thank you very much. You have twisted my words to say that I put "experience" or my "inner self" over scripture. Please, don't pervert my views. Read my statement again. I say NOTHING about putting experience over scripture. I say that I "feel called to share with others what I believe to be various truths I have discoverd in my life's journey, especially when it comes to those issues that relate in some way to my faith.”

HEY! Guess what one of the truths is that I have discovered in my life's journey?—The Bible is God's Word and should be our final authority in life!!!! Here's a few more truths I also have discovered: there is a personal God, and Jesus is God the Son, who died for our sins on the cross, after which he rose bodily from the grave and ascended into heaven. Moreover, everyone is a sinner in need of a savior, and that it is only through Christ that anyone can receive eternal life (John 14:6). This is postmodernism?


PAID: We do not recognize or discover truth; an omniscient God reveals it to us.
RA: Word games. Semnatics. Nit-picking. Straining at gnats. My goodness, of course God reveals all things to us, but we discover it in that we come upon it as God leads and guides us through life. Man, talk about being uptight and rigid! Lighten up. It's like your whole purpose (no pun intended) is to hunt and peck for SOMETHING to condemn.


PAID: I challenge anyone to state a single TRUTH (i.e. timeless, universal, absolute) that man has discovered. (Some ingenious fellow will say, “Ah, the Law of Gravity!” Okay, perhaps I would begin to believe you if you can explain the three body problem.) We all have ideas, suppositions, insights, beliefs, conjectures, theories, ad infinitum but truth as TRUTH is only received from God.
RA: Yeah, okay, fine. Yikes.


PAID: Five observations from the quote, I think, point out poor Richard’s view of truth:
RA: Actually, five misperceptions based on assumption, preconceived prejudice, and poor logic.


PAID: 1. Truth is experiential.
RA: wrong.


PAID: 2. Truth is all around us.
RA: True, only insofar as God is everywhere (omnipresence) and he is always revealing truth to those whom he has called (revelation).


PAID: 3. We can discover truth (i.e. not revealed).
RA: Wrong. See above. Man, you are digging hard.


PAID: 4. Truth is relative to me.
RA: Wrong.


PAID: 5. Truth is personal (i.e. about me).
RA: Wrong.


PAID: If most of my above five observations are anywhere near accurate, I would say these are a pretty good post-modern perception of truth.
RA: Nowhere near anything that relates to me. But your observations sure are a pretty good indication of your bias and prejudice against Warren, purpose driven, and those who are not so critical of Warren.


RAbanes

TO JOSPEH: I am still waiting for my apology.

 

JOSEPH: I apologize. I was wrong about you.
RA: Thank you. Accepted. Forgiven. Forgotten.

peace at ya,

RAbanes

 

PAID: belies.
RA: Ok, dude. calm down. I doubt seriously if anyone s going to read "belies" teh way you want to use it. Just call me pedantic. I call it using modern definitions of words that most people use. Oh well. Whatever. Fine. Belies it is, if that makes you feel better.


PAID: I noticed that you specifically did not deny that RW is free and easy in using Scripture but you made an excuse for it instead.
RA: Actually, I did nt make an excuse. I placed his use of scripture in the context of the way everyone uses scripture—i.e., imperfectly and clouded by our human flaws. Do you know ANYONE who uses scripture perfectly?—careful, now.


PAID: IMHO, it is always bad business to excuse one’s shortcomings by appealing to the shortcomings of others.
RA: Hmmmm. Well, actually I was appealing to our humanity, fallibility, and sinful natures. That's why all of us, ya know, make mistakes.


PAID: It is true that many pastors misuse the Scriptures. It is the scourge of the modern pulpit. However, this does not excuse RW.
RA: I never said it did. I am simply saying let's keep in in perspective and judge everyone equally. I certainly don't agree with how Warren used some verses, and I don't agree with a lot of people. So what? I'm sure I have done the same thing. Again, it's called being human.


PAID: If he is one of this crowd, then he is lacking in an essential ministerial function and open to criticism.
RA: Lacking? Well, if you are waiting for someone to be perfect before they can preach, teach, lead a church, or write a book, then we are iin in big, big, trouble.


PAID: Paul exhorted: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)."
RA: Ok, sure. He does study. So do I. So does every pastor. This has nothing to do with being human and making mistakes.


PAID: Why are you touchy about your hero?
RA: Touchy? I was teh one who just said Warren is imperfect, makes mistakes, and I disgaree with how he used some verses. He's just a man, like you, and me, and others. He's a sinner saved by grace who is doing is best to serve God and bring people to Jesus. if anyone is touchy, it is you—i.e., touchy about granting Warren a littel slack.


PAID: Have you thought of mentioning this legitimate criticism to RW? Or, is he unapproachable? Scripture tells us: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)” My best friends critique me and tell me when I am wrong.
RA: My goodness, people are correcting Rick all of the time. Clearly, I am saying it publicly so I have no problem telling Rick anything to his face. In my book I actually say Warren is not perfect, and that he has not always said or written everything perfectly.

And by the way, you should recant you false accusations about both me and Warren. You can't just accuse us of being postmodern, and then, when proved wrong, just ignore it and go on as if you never stated such things.

RA

 

Just saw your second post—

PAID: I did not say RW was a post-modernist.
RA: You suggested as much. This is aclassic tactic of critics. You make insinuations, implications, suggestions—all to draw readers in a certain directions that ultimately brings them to the conclusion you want them to hold. In this case that both RW and me are for all intents and purposes post-modern in our thoughts, words, deeds, and actions. You do not use such direct accusations, but you play the suggestion game.


PAID: Would you please define influence for me?
RA: See above.


PAID: I said one could detect some post-modern influences in his thinking. Now, we’re debating ideas, not a personality.
RA: And the truth is that you cannot detect or show ANY post-modern influences in his thining or mine. We both stand view post-modernism as utterly bankrupt and unbiblical. So, however you want to slice it, you are STILL wrong.


PAID: Your quoting of RW is inadequate in refuting my assertion.
RA: What? He just slammed post-modernism as boldly as anyone could! You don't denounce something and then have your own theology/teachings permeated or "influenced" by that same thing. Think, man. Allow yourself to see the truth. Your post-modern theories in connection to Warren (and me) are of your own creation.


PAID: All along, one of my major criticisms has been that RW’s stated positions are not consistent with his actions.
RA: Oh, I think they are.


PAID: There is dichotomy between his professed beliefs and application. I have not challenged his orthodoxy.
RA: Where has Warren in his application of anything shown an "influence" of post-modernism.


PAID: Finally, your departing emotional diatribe is unworthy of the sophisticated and cultured young gent that you purport to be.
RA: Not sure what you even mean by this. I wasn't all that emotional. A bit amused and surprised by your comments, but not really emotional.


PAID: I have basically accused RW of nothing.
RA: Oh, c'mon, please.


PAID: You are coming as the devotee of a Christian guru.
RA: Another accusation with no documentation. I am a devotee of no one—except Jesus Christ my savior and king. My book on Warren is just the last one in a long line of apologietic related volumes. I always go online and discuss the issues i nmy books. What I cling to is truth—and that is NOT being voiced by many critics with regard to Warren.


RW is NOT the UNTOUCHABLE! His ideas, speech and behavior are open to scrutiny and comparison with Scripture as much as anyone’s.
RA: Ok, sure. I have no problem with that. Just keep your accusations and implications honest and consistent with the facts—not invented assumptions, preconceived notions, and unsubstantiated rumors.


RAbanes

 

PAID: I said your words and actions indicate a post-modern influence in regards to your view of truth.
RA: And that is wrong.


PAID: Perhaps you don't even understand how it has influenced you.
RA: Oh, this is unbelievable. Now you are telling me that I don't even know what I am thinking or believing. Basically, that I HAVE been influenced by the very thing that I understand quite well and have not only rejected but publicly criticized. Brilliant. Well, I can't argue with a mind/heart reader. You win.


PAID: If you have lived in the USA for the past 25 years without being a hermit, post-modernism has impacted your thinking in some way. It is foolish to deny it. I stand pat on my statements, not your misguided interpretations.
RA: As I said, I can't argue with a mind/heart thinker. Okay, then you have been influenced by post-modernism too and it has crept into your beief system and you have it as underlying your worldview and contaminating your faith. NO? Well, you may not realize it, but its true nevertheless. You also have been influenced by Mormonism because it is such a visible and growing religin in America. Also, New Age Eastern philosophy is VERY populare, rampant in society, and exalted on TV—you and your fiath have all of that influence in there too.


PAID: Evidently you are on an emotional jag here and it has fouled your ability to debate rationally.
RA: This is odd. I am the one who spent numerous parts posting quotes and rational arguments. You just keep denying and accusing, denying and accusing, denying and accusing. It is an insurmountable tactic, to be sure, but not very condusive to truth-finding. Ah well.


PAID: By removing my statements from their context, you are bending them to fit your purpose, which appears to defend RW against any and all criticism.
RA: Again, an odd comment since I myself criticized Warren in my various posts. Once more, Ah well.


PAID: They are idealists who believe that fair and rational debate is possible without emotions and egos entering into the disagreement of ideas.
RA: I look forward to interacting with those people here. I also am glad to be discussing things with you.


PAID: Furthermore, you are the one making the insinuations now. You are insinuating that I am some kind of despicable critic who stacks the deck.
RA: I never said despicable. You do sort of stack the deck and in my opinion, you have an agenda. But that is just an opinion that is an intangible. This is not like your accusation about me being influenced by post modernism. I can give you statement's from my belief system that indicate your assertion is false.


PAID: Fellow, you are trying to do to me the very thing of which you accuse me. There is name for this—hypocrisy. Now, that's a sustainable accusation, not insinuation.
RA: