Rick Warren, market-driven church, and being all things to all people...

I agree and disagree with both Johns on a number of different issues. There is no single person I can say I agree 100% with that individual on every issue. I learn from both of them. I do see some of their concerns and believe they are legitimate. Others concerns they raise, I do not see them. Have you ever thought they could be wrong?

I love MacArthur and Piper. Their books, seminars, sermons, etc. have taught me many things. I just recognize God is not bound to the MacArthur or Piper box.

The Shepherding Conferences are good. I have learned from those who teach them. I also consider MacArthur biblical and solid. I also consider Warren biblical and solid.

I am sure you are not suggesting they differ on the fundamentals of the faith. That would put them outside the orthodox, evangelical realm. They differ on methodology and some secondary theology. And yet God has used both of them to build great works. What does that tell you?

Just a side note, does your "high" view of God (as you like to remind us) allow you to recognize God is powerful enough to use people in a great way who differ from you? Often those who claim to have a "high" view of God actually have a very limited view of God that can only fit in their own perspective of who God is and how He wants to be worshipped. They believe God prefers one type of preaching, certain songs, a particular methodology, etc. How "high" is that view of God? Interesting thought huh?

My thoughts are very simple. 1) I hope you do not judge everyone based upon a 3-5 minute web site recording. 2) I have viewed multitudes of church web sites and listened or read their "becoming a Christian" section and few if any have all of the things listed you mention above. Don't try to overcomplicate the gospel to fit your own presuppositions. 3) Warren is targeting a seeker who may be wandering what life is all about. The terms discipleship and take up your cross mean nothing to this individual. The word repentance means nothing. Warren simply communicates at a level they can understand. Reminds me of Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and the Samaritan woman, etc. Can you show me where Jesus mentioned the word repentance to Nicodemus? The moment a person is willing to embrace Jesus as Savior, repentance is a natural step in this process (whether the person understands the term or not). 4) Saddleback's web page is designed primarily for their members & attendees (with this small section for seekers). It is not designed for BB participants who want to evaluate or critique their ministry.

The primary reasons most of the churches I know that have a Saturday night service have them are: a) out of space or b) providing more opportunities for people to come.

I think Warren fits both categories. Considering their auditorium seats around 3500 and they have between 15-20k attendees on a weekend, you do the math.

BTW, is convenience a negative thing when sharing the gospel? Should it be our goal in making a home visit to interrupt their supper or show up at 10:00 or when they are walking out the door? Just being sarcastic (somewhat)

 

This is fair. Would you mind sharing what you asked him? I am interested in what you asked and how you asked it.

I would not necessarily call it LCD theology for the simple reason that I believe there are definitive doctrines that distinguish who we are. In other words, I am a Baptist for a reason, viz., I believe Baptistic doctrine. However I do believe it is possible I am wrong on some of the Baptist distinctives. I do not think I am, but I recognize many others who are just as committed to the integrity of the gospel differ from me on some of the Baptist beliefs. Therefore I must allow for flexibility.

I think the best way to describe my theological beliefs is the Redeemer Presbyterian Church model. If you have not seen the diagram, it is composed of three concentric circles.

The inner circle represents the fundamentals and defines who we are as Christians (the essentials outlined by most orthodox Christians). In other words, you cannot claim to be a Christian and deny these truths.

The second circle represents distinctive beliefs, i.e., what it means to be a Baptist, Presbyterian, Charismatic, etc. This circle obviously is not as tight as the first and those in the second circle are naturally a part of the first. If someone wants to join our church, they need to understand our distinctive beliefs. These are issues that define who we are. Yet there is flexibility in the second circle b/c others define themselves differently. We will not permit people to cause division over the second circle, so we define our beliefs up front. These are not matters for discussion but neither are they matters that are ESSENTIAL to the gospel itself.

The third circle is the largest and represents personal preferences, doctrinal distinctives that may differ even within denominational titles, choices of methodology, style of music, etc. Needless to say, this circle covers a wide range of issues. Yet these issues are in the outer circle for a purpose. They are not essentials. They are not even distinctives (as far as fundamental distinctives such as baptism by immersion). I must allow for a lot of flexibility in this latter circle. We may even discuss and differ on issues in the last circle. We will not allow division in the last circle b/c we recognize there is room for disagreement.

I hope you can understand the gist of the circles. I simply put Warren's methodology and many of these other matters in the last circle.

Does that make sense?

 

Molly I've said this many times before, Amazing Grace doesn't mention Jesus at all either, but you don't have a problem with it. Your focus when you mention songs seems to be wether or not it mentions Jesus, then in that case your going to have to go through all your hymns and delete those that do not have Jesus in them.

All I asked is if anyone had gone there and investigated anything, no reason for you to jump on me.

 

What? Who is jumping on you...me? Nope,I was just responding with,yes,I have seen the website and have some pretty strong arguments against some of the songs they worship with and fishing ministry,rollerblading ministry,etc...in fact these were much easier to find than their one page statement of belief(their doctrine statment),which my husband did finally find last night at about 11pm. Also,their view of man is that man has potential for good...read it for yourself. I clearly see scripture teach the total depravity of man,never read that on their website either.

Katie,this is *so* not personal with you or anyone else...I have a problem with the philosophy this church embraces....please do not see a disagreement as an attack! Please!

 

Katie,I was glad you brought up the website Thanks!...I am not attacking you,but we have to examine everything with the word,that is okay to do,in fact we are commanded to do so in 1st Thess 5,I believe. That is all I am doing...not attacking people,esp not you!

 

SBC,We have primary doctrinal issues,secondary doctrinal issues in our church framework,etc,like you mentioned ...The thing about this is,I feel the Word of God is being regulated to a secondary position in a seeker sensitive church,such as Saddleback. That is primary to me.....

I could find no mention of expository preaching,but found a lot on the fishing ministry....

 

Key words: "I feel" and "to me".

Equals: OPINION

Do you think the average person visiting their website has any clue what expository preaching means? I preach expositional-application messages every Sunday. Doesn't mean I have to put it on my website.

I hate to disappoint you here, but expository preaching is not the only model that God blesses. Ask Spurgeon.

Warren is clear that there are times when he does verse-by-verse exposition and times he does not. Again there is no biblical precedence here.

What you may prefer, others may not. Doesn't make you any more right.

Still waiting for answers to my earlier posts.

 

But,you told me that was a emphasis in his ministry,so I was asking again about it.

 

Wrong. I never said he emphasized or de-emphasized it. I merely said he spent 2 1/2 years going through Romans. He did this in his believer's services. To have read the book as often as you claim, you sure do not remember some of the basics.

 

I do not remember that in the book. Yes,I have read it quite a few times,but I have not seen that about Romans...

What I did read was...."My sermon titles are not intended to impress members of other churches. In fact,if you judged Saddleback on the basis of sermon tiltles only,one might conclude that we're pretty shallow. But since Christians are not our target,we're not being shallow,just strategic."

Church is for believers and when someone is saved they desire for the meat of the word,so he is saying here that discipling and offering depth is not his emphasis. Then what is church for? To him,evengelism only...things are all out of kilter. It is one thing to equip your church to share the gospel of Christ with a lost friend,but to make your whole church evangelsitic,to the point of making your sermons sound like Reader's Digest articles,I think that is way off balance.

I love God's word,you see,it has changed my life. I LOVE to hear it preached,I love the way it changes my thinking,I love that it is all I need for godliness in my life. I love it's precepts,commandments,and statutues. I,also know that when there is weak teaching,little growth can occur. I'm very thankful for the pastors I have sat under,all of them,expository or topical...but,I can honestly say,until one hears the meat of the word preached consistently,and studied it on their own,and have been in some depth filled classes...it is hard to discern and be goldy in areas of life. Believe me,I know and have had my experience with weak teaching growing up. It did not cause me to live differently,it made it easy. But,now in God's grace,he has allowed me to be exposed to some great teaching,great books from what I see as godly biblcally based men,and I look back and wonder "what was I thinking????"(in relation to how I was living,not knowing or desiring for Truth) I want this for every believer....I long for purity in the church in the area of doctrine,my husband and I feel the need to protect the gospel,even if it means unpopularity,or wise cracks from the BB folks. We care so much about the church and beleievers,that we want what is best for them. It is sad for me to see a church so caught up in community center type activities,when they are missing the greatest thing ever,the richness of God,who He is and being satisfied with that.

So,that is my heart on this issue. I disagree with you,SBC,and that is all I can say. I can not and will not be supportive of something that denies the power of God's word in people's lives. And yes,I believe in the sufficiency of scripture,I will say it again. It is what we need permeating our every thought and action,we need more of it,not less....we need less of the world's ideas,and more biblical standards.

Of course people are going to flock to Saddleback,it is what they like and want....but,please,give me what I need not want!