Rick Warren and Interfaith Political Conference

[Marcia]

Not quite what I meant

I believe that passage in 2 John is used out of context. It is referring to believers giving a platform for an unbeliever to share his false gospel, i.e. spiritual matters, which would mean believers give their approval of doing so. I don't see this conference as doing that at all.

I think in a more technical or specific sense, you are right. But I think that giving them a forum for sharing some political views is still creating the possibility for problems and also opening the door to having people think the pastor or the church is okay with those views (political or religious), especially if these people have high profiles or leadership in certain organizations that may advocate for things opposed by the Bible.

These unbelievers' political views are most likely informed by their religious and cultural ones.

Aside from all that, I do not think it right to have a political forum in a church with unbelievers in prominent roles. I'm all for unbelievers coming to a church, but not being given a platform or leadership position in a conference, no matter what the topic is (this is why I also strongly disagreed with Willow Creek having T D Jakes speak at their leadership conference).

 

[webdog]

I think we tend to cry 'foul' when unbelievers use the "separation of church and state" argument...but we do the same thing about mixing politics and religion. Some day there will be Theocracy...you can't blend the two any better than that.

Now, I have a problem with a pastor or church endorsing a particular political figure or position, but I don't see a problem with allowing their building to host an event without this taking place.

 

[Marcia]

I think we tend to cry 'foul' when unbelievers use the "separation of church and state" argument...but we do the same thing about mixing politics and religion.

But I think these are 2 different things - one is preventing the state from advocating for one religion above other (which is what separation of church and state really means), while the other is making a church a place for a political platform. The way the government is run is based on the world and its values; the church should be run according to God's word.

Some day there will be Theocracy...you can't blend the two any better than that

.

But it will be under the rule of Christ, not men. Men cannot bring the world into submission; we can only preach the gospel and disciple believers, and be salt and light.

 

[preachinjesus]

Really? You would make your church part of a political forum?

I would want my church to part of the community. I want my church to be involved in bringing people together to encourage dialogue. These guys aren't going to be teaching Sunday School (or in Rev. Warren's case small groups) but engaging honestly about matters in society while in the shadow of the cross.

Or your role as pastor to be a political person? I think it's fine to get the candidates to get together to talk, but I don't see it as a pastor's job.

All pastors are politicians. Now how and where they exercise this role is up to them. Rev. Warren has been amazing amounts of international influence and, whether we like it or not, has been given a tremendous voice through God's sovereignty. He regularly talks with major world leaders, and is anchored to the cross of Christ.

Rev. Warren isn't running for anything here. Rather he is leveraging this tremendous influence God has given him to bring together two men, one of whom will be the President by middle November, to openly talk about issues that matter. Christians shouldn't be throwing stones but honestly praying that they will hear God's voice in this process.

This is a role the Church should be comfortable with, not that we endorse any candidate (which Rev. Warren isn't doing), but that we join hand in hand with those seeking to lead us, hear from them, and pray for them. That is what the New Testament commends us to do.

And no matter whether that quote was true or not, I would really not want my church to host a conference where platforms are given to unbelievers.

That's fine, that is your preference. Don't throw Rev. Warren under the bus for accomplishing what no other organization can before the conventions, before the posturing, before the post-convention super-polarization.

What about the principle underlying 2 John 1.9-11?

I have no clue how you are pulling this into our discussion. (Not being snarky, just honest) These guys aren't teaching Sunday School. They won't be speaking on Sunday morning. They are going to sit down and talk about what our society can do to better itself, about our role as leaders in the world. They aren't teaching theology, just talking about their vision for the nation.

As I understand this, this means you do not give a platform to a false teacher in your church. It looks too much like you endorse them, and also it could lead to some being influenced by them.

The Sunday platform should be reserved for teaching from the Scriptures. This isn't a "Sunday platform" for these guys. How can Rev. Warren look like he's endorsing both candidates? No realistic person will think he's doing that. He is seek to influence them.

Let's not get into an old covenant perspective of the church building here. The idea behind the New Covenant is that God took us out of the Temple and put the temple in us. Let's not worship a room.

I know Rev. Warren is a sore point for many around here. But what if he really is God's annointed messenger for this generation? I mean really, what if?

 

[Marcia]

I would want my church to part of the community. I want my church to be involved in bringing people together to encourage dialogue. These guys aren't going to be teaching Sunday School (or in Rev. Warren's case small groups) but engaging honestly about matters in society while in the shadow of the cross.

How do you know they will be honest?

All pastors are politicians. Now how and where they exercise this role is up to them.

Well I sure disagree with you there. Politicians are people who are professionally involved in politics, which is a pretty dirty business. I don't see how all pastors are politicians.

This is a role the Church should be comfortable with, not that we endorse any candidate (which Rev. Warren isn't doing), but that we join hand in hand with those seeking to lead us, hear from them, and pray for them. That is what the New Testament commends us to do.

I guess we just disagree on this.

Don't throw Rev. Warren under the bus for accomplishing what no other organization can before the conventions, before the posturing, before the post-convention super-polarization.

Well, I'm not throwing him under the bus, just disagreeing. I don't know why disagreeing is "throwing someone under the bus." And I don't know if I consider this an accomplishment.

I have no clue how you are pulling this into our discussion. (Not being snarky, just honest) These guys aren't teaching Sunday School. They won't be speaking on Sunday morning. They are going to sit down and talk about what our society can do to better itself, about our role as leaders in the world. They aren't teaching theology, just talking about their vision for the nation.

Well I explained why - I cited 2 John, for one reason. And I explained why I think it's applicable. You disagree - that's fine. I invited thoughts on this and I meant it - including those who disagree.

Let's not get into an old covenant perspective of the church building here. The idea behind the New Covenant is that God took us out of the Temple and put the temple in us. Let's not worship a room.

I am not worshiping a room. Did you read what I wrote? I made that clear. Please don't distort what I said.

You made 2 false dichotomies here - one about throwing RW under the bus (so either I agree with him or "throw him under the bus") and the 2nd one is: either I agree with RW or I am "worshiping a room."

 

[Revmitchell]

You made 2 false dichotomies here - one about throwing RW under the bus (so either I agree with him or "throw him under the bus") and the 2nd one is: either I agree with RW or I am "worshiping a room."

And this is what happens when you fail to fall on your knees at the alter of RW around here. Heaven forbid his methods or theology be questioned.

 

[webdog]

And this is what happens when you fail to fall on your knees at the alter of RW around here. Heaven forbid his methods or theology be questioned.

...and you have supplied another

I have not seen anybody worship this man, and your comment was uncalled for and out of line. Accusing us of idolatry is grounds for dismissal here on the BB.

 

[preachinjesus]

I think I forgot smilies in my earlier post to communicate the cordial nature of my typing...my apologies. I'll do better, I'm just talking here too...these acursed keyboards don't reflect vocal inflections awfully well. :laugh:

How do you know they will be honest?

I would think that they will be asked questions about their vision for America, where they believe we are headed, and what they choose to do about. Nothing to be dishonest about imho.

Well I sure disagree with you there. Politicians are people who are professionally involved in politics, which is a pretty dirty business. I don't see how all pastors are politicians.

I guess we define politician differently here. That's perfectly okay, I was attempting humor. Pastors engage in politics all too often, it's okay to say that too. Politics isn't dirty it is just politics. All of our churches have some degree of politics involved and pastors have to navigate them. Doesn't make them evil. It's not bad, it's not good, it just is.

I guess we just disagree on this.

Agree to disagree...sounds fine to me.

Well, I'm not throwing him under the bus, just disagreeing. I don't know why disagreeing is "throwing someone under the bus." And I don't know if I consider this an accomplishment.

My comment above was meant a little less severe than it was taken. My apologies if there was an underlying tone that wasn't received well. Some of you comments above have you rhetorically going at it with Rev. Warren. Wouldn't want to be confused there. I believe what he is doing with the PEACE plan and this is indeed a major accomplishment, particularly since he isn't making any money off of it but leveraging his God given influence to make this world a better place.

Well I explained why - I cited 2 John, for one reason. And I explained why I think it's applicable. You disagree - that's fine. I invited thoughts on this and I meant it - including those who disagree.

I just think your use of 2 John is not in keeping with the intention of the event. Rev. Warren isn't inviting these guys to teach Sunday School or preach from the pulpit. They are going to engage in a frank and honest exchange of ideas. I applaud any man or woman who gets people to do this. It is hard in this day and age for certain. (smiley here too, but the board won't let me put in)

I am not worshiping a room. Did you read what I wrote? I made that clear. Please don't distort what I said.

You made 2 false dichotomies here - one about throwing RW under the bus (so either I agree with him or "throw him under the bus") and the 2nd one is: either I agree with RW or I am "worshiping a room."

Well the worshipping a room thing wasn't aimed at you, but a general comment. I can understand if you don't agree with someone, I disagree with many people often...and agree with many just as much. What we must be careful of is be overly castigating towards someone who clearly has the hand of God on his life. We can't deny that something must be up with him. I don't particularly care for Rev. Warren's purposes for church or his text, The Purpose Driven Life. Just not my thing, but I will stand behind his character (which many, not aimed at you, on this board are happy to desmirch) and God ordained position (he is a sound Bible teacher.) Finally I'm not making false dichotomies. There are many options. We can openly disagree and agree about positions and know there are many other positions available. In my text above I not done so, we are just beginning our conversation and maybe this medium is not a happy one to have such a conversation.

Well blessings on your journey.

 

[Deacon]

I like PilgrimPastors take on this issue.

Have Christians have lost their senses?

At one time Christians were noted for their benevolence,
... but not now!

Now the government and liberal organizations take taken up that banner.

SHAME ON US!

We dishonor Christ by turning our backs on those in need.
Christ is dishonored by the constant bashing of those Christians that help the poor.

Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good.
They must not slander anyone and must avoid quarreling. Instead, they should be gentle and show true humility to everyone.

Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled and became slaves to many lusts and pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy, and we hated each other.

But—“When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love, he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit.
He generously poured out the Spirit upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.
Because of his grace he declared us righteous and gave us confidence that we will inherit eternal life.”
This is a trustworthy saying, and I want you to insist on these teachings so that all who trust in God will devote themselves to doing good. These teachings are good and beneficial for everyone.

Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.
Titus 3:1-9 NLT

Rob

 

[JustChristian]

For those us who are interested heavily in "The Common Good" of bringing people into a covenant relationship with Christ, this is troubling. Rick Warren seems to have bought into the postmodern Church worldview hook, line, and sinker. While I really do respect his desire to use his notoriety in and outside the Church effectively, I would have to ask the question, "How does one define effectiveness in this context?" We need to ask ourself some serious questions in this era;

What is our role in society as the Church? Is it purely salvific, to bring people into covenant relationship with Christ, or do we have a broader social responsibility in the here and now affairs of this life? If we do have such a role to play in society, what is supposed to look like? Politics? Justice movements? Local benevolent organizations?

What about this event my church did last month for a local school for special needs kids? http://www.1stperu.org/events.htm

What about boycotts of a political nature? (I started toying with a blog idea) http://chrissurber.blogspot.com/

What is our role, in my estimation? To look like Christ dying on the Cross for this world inasmuch as we are enabled by God. We should look much less like a political action committee and much more like Christ on the Cross.

As for Warren, I have mixed thoughts on his ministry, but I respect that he is not sitting on the sidelines watching the game being played; he has his pads and helmet on and is willing to play the game...

I fully agree with what you're saying. But this action by Rick Warren pales along side the open support of the Republican party and its candidates for the last 25 years or so and the vehement attacks made on those who supported other candidates. I was told twice to my face that a Democrat cannot be a Christian.

I think Christians should be knowledgeable about the issues but should leave voting decisions up to the individual. I hope Rick isn't holding this conference on church property. I wouldn't support that.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I've not seen such mindless hatred and open jealousy in a long time. Cannot imagine the thinking of some here.

 

[rbell]

And this is what happens when you fail to fall on your knees at the alter of RW around here. Heaven forbid his methods or theology be questioned.

Oh well, it was civil for a while...

 

[Marcia]

I would think that they will be asked questions about their vision for America, where they believe we are headed, and what they choose to do about. Nothing to be dishonest about imho.

Really? An honest politician??:laugh: Hey, look at where I live! An honest politician is an oxymoron.

I guess we define politician differently here. That's perfectly okay, I was attempting humor. Pastors engage in politics all too often, it's okay to say that too. Politics isn't dirty it is just politics. All of our churches have some degree of politics involved and pastors have to navigate them. Doesn't make them evil. It's not bad, it's not good, it just is.

If you are talking about church politics that is not what I thought you meant. I meant politics as in political campaigns, presidential candidates, etc.

I just think your use of 2 John is not in keeping with the intention of the event. Rev. Warren isn't inviting these guys to teach Sunday School or preach from the pulpit. They are going to engage in a frank and honest exchange of ideas. I applaud any man or woman who gets people to do this. It is hard in this day and age for certain. (smiley here too, but the board won't let me put in)

Woops, there's that word "honest" again! I don't trust politicians or people who reject Christ and think they can make the world a better place, especially if they advocate gay rights. I used to be one (not gay but a non-Christian who thought we could make the world a better place). They do have an agenda - they are not just well-meaning people. Look at how a certain segment of the population has made inroads to the extent that I think half or over half of evangelical Christians are becoming comfortable with homosexuality. These people will be happy to use RW, the church, evangelicals, or whoever to get their goals in place. The world is fallen and non-believers are unredeemed. The Bible says their minds are darkened. I am disturbed about giving them a platform in a church and partnering with them. I totally believe in loving them -- I am a missionary to New Age people and people in the occult. I love people of all kinds. But I think it crosses a line to have a conf. like this at a church. I know we disagree on that.

I don't particularly care for Rev. Warren's purposes for church or his text, The Purpose Driven Life. Just not my thing, but I will stand behind his character (which many, not aimed at you, on this board are happy to desmirch) and God ordained position (he is a sound Bible teacher.)

Just to clarify, I am not one of those people who likes to slam RW and thinks he is a New Ager, etc. I try to be very fair in my assessment of him or of anyone, for that matter. I think he is a believer who wants to serve God and has good intentions. But I disagree with him on some things.

Finally I'm not making false dichotomies.

Well, I think I pointed them out but I won't push it. :wavey: I had no anger or rancour (sp?) in my postings to you. Just disagreeing and trying to make points.

Well blessings on your journey

Thank you, preachinjesus. Same to you! :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

...and you have supplied another

I have not seen anybody worship this man, and your comment was uncalled for and out of line. Accusing us of idolatry is grounds for dismissal here on the BB.

Just exactly who is us?

 

[Beth]

Thanks, Lou

The roots of Saddleback sink deeply into the ministry philosophy of ultra liberal Robert Schuller:

Warren spoke for Schuller in subsequent conferences.

1. Warren embraces deliberate pragmatism of the worst kind. He believes that anyone one can be reached based on "finding the key to that person's heart." Therefore, the unbelieving community sets the agenda for his church: Warren says, "We let the unchurched needs determine our programs; the unchurched hang-ups determine our strategy; the unchurched culture determine our style; the unchurched population determine our goals." (PD website)

2. Warren routinely misuses Scripture. The Bible is a tool that Warren manipulates to cover his own ideas with a veneer of divine authority. For example, in the Purpose Driven Life he quotes from 15 Bible versions and paraphrases, picking and choosing the one that fits his pragmatic need. This process often wrenches texts out of context.

3. Warren is guilty of serious theological reductionism. He discounts the value of a well-rounded system of doctrine and even considers doctrine an obstacle to unity. On his Purpose Driven website he lists his doctrinal statement that any Bible college graduate would find completely inadequate:

His doctrine of theology proper is the following: "God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine." That's it for the doctrine of God. It is so insufficient one could say that it falls short of an adequate understanding of the Christian concept of God the Father.

4. Warren promotes extreme ecumenism. In April, 2005, the PD org. officially forged ties with the Roman Catholic Church by providing a training conference at Holy Family Catholic Church in Inverness, Illinois. "We are excited by this because we are seeing God unify his churches." (Pastor Brett Schrock, Purpose Driven's Director of Strategic Relationships.)

5. Warren justifies cultural capitulation by embracing anti-God cultural norms. A notable example of this occurred when Warren sang the Jimi Hendrix song, "Purple Haze," during the 25th anniversary celebration service of Saddleback Church.

6. Warren redefines ministry in terms of social activism. Alan Wolfe of the Wall Street Journal says, "Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns."

Warren's Global Peace Plan for "Purpose Driven Nations" includes involving himself with the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. in order to rid the world of "poverty, disease, and illiteracy" by forming entangling alliances between churches, secular businesses, and governments. This is an agenda completely foreign to the Great Commission and the NT church as laid out in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

7. Warren accepts easy-believism. "Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: 'Jesus, I believe in you and receive you.' If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!" (PDL, p. 74).

8. Warren relies heavily on pop psychology. Popular themes in secular psychology appear regularly in Warren’s writings, shaping everything from outreach strategy to discipleship curricula.

How the "Purpose Driven" Ministry Mishandled the "Purpose" of the Scriptures

I personally avoid the man and his ministry, Marcia.

 

[webdog]

Just exactly who is us?

Those you are accusing of worshipping Rick Warren.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

I like PilgrimPastors take on this issue.

Have Christians have lost their senses?

At one time Christians were noted for their benevolence,
... but not now!

Now the government and liberal organizations take taken up that banner.

SHAME ON US!

We dishonor Christ by turning our backs on those in need.
Christ is dishonored by the constant bashing of those Christians that help the poor.

Thanks.

I see this played out in both Liberal and Conservative Churches. I am a Baptist Theologically who ended up somehow meandering my way, God's leading of course, into the pulpit of now my second Congregational Church Pastorate. Both of the churches I have served as senior (solo) pastor are former UCC (United Church of Christ) churches who pulled out of the UCC over their "current agenda" of the ordination of gay pastors and radical social change in place of preaching Christ for the most part... I need to stay on topic or I will write your ears off about that...

I have also been a part of very conservative Baptist Churches who implied, said, things would have led one to believe that G.W. was "God's Candidate" in the 2000 election.

Whether it is casting off the radical Christ-following found in the Gospels for a Liberal social agenda or it is declaring God's moral candidate from a pulpit intended to plead the blood of Christ and the message of hope and redemption to sinners, leaving behind genuine Christ-following for alternative agendas is a bad idea.

Having said that, clearly we do have a role to play in society, BUT it should first and foremost be about loving people into the Kingdom of God not pandering to any of the Kingdoms of this world; regardless of how good and noble that worldly kingdom's cause may be.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

I fully agree with what you're saying. But this action by Rick Warren pales along side the open support of the Republican party and its candidates for the last 25 years or so and the vehement attacks made on those who supported other candidates. I was told twice to my face that a Democrat cannot be a Christian.

I think Christians should be knowledgeable about the issues but should leave voting decisions up to the individual. I hope Rick isn't holding this conference on church property. I wouldn't support that.

I agree that this is not nearly as ugly as what you have described. I am suggesting, though, that they are both part of the same disease, infection, and pulsing-puss-filled cyst which glares at me from the very face of the body of Christ...

The Church is so wrapped up in political ideology that it is largely blinded to the fact that collectively all of our picket signs about this thing and that make up a larger picket sign which boycotts Christ. In other words, in our very efforts to bring about "social change" - remember I am speaking about liberals and conservatives here - in our efforts to change society as a whole through political maneuvering, coalitions, and the like we are neglecting our primary task of looking like Christ on the Cross. When we get that one down, perhaps then we should form some Political Action Committees!

This plays out in VERY practical ways. Where does the gay person who is questioning his or her lifestyle, place in the world, relationship with God, go to seek answers on Sunday morning? Where do we recommend they go? Perhaps to their local UCC Church who will tell them that God made them gay and they should just embrace it and oh, by the way, our denomination is lobbying for "gay marriage!" OR do they go to their local "Fundy" (pardon the pun if you are one ) Baptist Church who may likely mention to them, "Our church is currently lobbying for the ban on gay marriage amendment!"

God rescue your Church from such diversions! I would suggest to you (us) that Christ carried no picket signs and changed the world. I would further suggest that the mustard seed of Mathew 13:31-32 was not a seedling for political or social change, but a seed of matchless worth (as I preached today and will have uploaded tomorrow night) which would be watered by Christ's blood and the blood of martyrs.

I am terribly afraid that we are horribly off track in the American Church. I am ALL for defending truth (see http://www.1stperu.org/pastorsstudy) but we must strive to look primarily like Christ and not the world.

 

[PilgrimPastor]

Footnote:

I don't think anybody is trying to worship Rick Warren. We live in a media driven, sensational, celebrity marketed culture. Warren, for better or worse, is the Brad Pitt of Christianity... well, he certainly doesn't look like Brad Pitt... maybe Rodney Dangerfield :laugh: