Rick Warren

A few observations about the Mohler article. I know Al Mohler personally and have heard him speak many, many times, so I feel I am "knowledgable" of his opinions and beliefs.

- While Mohler is a giant in certain arenas of church life (99% which have to do with theology), he has a tendency, like some others who speak on this subject occasionally, to attack extremes and straw men. This is vivid in his attack upon the "majority" of evangelicals who do not embrace absolute truth. I know of very few major evangelical "spokesmen" who do not embrace absolute truth. Many of the unnamed victims in these articles are people who embrace the same view of truth as Mohler.

- While I respect Al Mohler as a theologian and seminary prez, he has never pastored a day in his life. My personal experience is that ivory tower theories about local church ministry often fall short of reality.

- Mohler has created a paradigm that sets up expository preaching as the ONLY right model. This paradigm is built solely on personal opinion and conclusion. It is not a method prescribed or even largely practiced in Scripture. Again this is one of the difficulties in being a theorist -- theories promoted behind a lecturn or a study door may or may not be reality in everyday ministry.

Again -- I appreciate Al Mohler. Anyone who knows him knows his passion to defend the truth. That does not make him the authority across the board on all subject matters related to church life. </font>[/QUOTE]I recommended Al Mohler's article, not Al Mohler! However, you did not address a single issue in the article but you tried to negate the points by neutralizing Al Mohler. If the points are valid and true, then it doesn't matter who wrote it. It is ironic that you have taken others, including me, to task for criticizing RW but you have done the same to to Al Mohler in a nice, polite, pious way. What did Christ say about those who condemn the thing they do themselves? Instead of discussing substantive issues regarding RW's ministry, this thread has degenerated into a partisan defense of RW and PDL. RW has become a sacred cow.

 

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above.

 

Man, RA, all of the above abuse to find out you didn't ask him why he used the Scriptures in the manner he did.

--------------------

P: Did you not ask him about this criticism? Did he not discuss this with you?
RA: NO, we had to deal with so much other #@%^&*
that we filled about 12-14 pages worth of interview material as it was. I asked several pointed questions, but not this particular one. There, despite all of the other information I cover, you can ignore all of it and just focus on my not discussing this one issue with him. Way ahead of you Paul.

----------------------------

For a guy who wined about how he was treated when he first came on the BB, you sure have a knack for not letting go and dishing it out yourself.

Bitter to the very end, aren't you?

 

RA,

I've got to laugh at your responses.

I apologized to you for taking a hike, if your intentions were to discuss Warren and not SPAM the board.

You obviously are confusing me with someone else, because I didn't share any misinformation about Warren. I freely admitted I didn't know, that's why I was asking questions.

I asked several questions for the purpose of hearing from you the facts.

But in the process, you did nothing but throw around accusations and guess at what my motives were for asking the questions.

And then, in the end, the one burning question that I had about Warren you couldn't answer. And even in that, I'm to blame!

And this is how you treat me because I told you to take a hike?

 

wow...(just doing my part to get this thread to the 10-page limit)

 

RA it does seem a little strange that the one criticism directed towards RW that would raisethe most concern would be the one concerning the misuse of Scripture. The other criticisms are really obscure compared to that one.
It is, I believe the one critique that you agree with yourself to a point. According to some of your posts.
It would seem that you would want to clear that one up the most? If it was my home church pastor and folk would want to try and discredit his ministry the one thing I would despise the most is someone, or a group of people claiming my pastor didn't know his Bible or mishandled it.

I think it was both you and All about Grace who admitted that RW doesnt get it right all the time.
Its almost sounds like this if you read between the lines: Well, ole RW is doing so much good in other areas we will cut him some slack on his exegesis.
In the beginning of PDL RW stretches the 40 days thing just a bit. You even admit this RA. Now while it wasn't much of a stretch it was still a stretch. Now I'm not calling RW a heretic,false teacher etc... However; when those little exaggerations pop up in the introduction of a man's book he opens himself up to scrutiny from other bible students. It causes red flags to pop up in people's minds who know a little bit about their bible. It will not make one bit of difference to someone who picks up PDL at Wal-mart or at a Sam's Club who has never read the Bible but was attracted to the catchy name of the book. Which is not fair to that person.
I'm not trying to be a nitpicker but simply saying RW set himself up to be nitpicked by playing a little loose with Scripture.
If you want to cut him some slack because RW is human and "doesn't always get it right". Cut that slack somewherelse other than how he handled the text in his book. Cut him some slack over his methodology or his views on worship. Those issues are debatable. Saying the 12 spies were transformed by their 40 day experience is almost laughable. Even my 9 and 11 year old daughters had a easy time with that one. Why did RW try to fit that into the central message of his book when there is no way it will fit?
How could a guy with so much preaching experience etc... make such a obvious blunder with Scripture? I personally just think its because it went well with the theme of his book and he just let it go. ???
RA, I have a wonderful pastor. Folk can pick on him about everything but I'll go to bat for him everytime when it comes to how he handles the Word of God. Yet, out of all your interview you missed that one. Maybe its because your friends or maybe because he is your a mentor in some ways you felt a little sheepish about confronting him with that kind of question? It would be understandable.
I'm not gonna go off the deep end about the book alot of good stuff in there. Yet, according to one major magazine RW is quite possibly considered "America's Pastor" therefore; he above all else should be extremely careful on how he handles the Text when writing best-sellers that everyone the world over is being exposed to instead of trying to squeeze portions of it into his books. You should have asked him that question. I believe you gave him a pass.

 

ShannonL:

Does your pastor get it right every time?

And I know you seem very hung up on the 40 days intro. I am not sure why. There are a number of scholars who point to the uniqueness of the time period 40 days that God often uses to prepare someone or do something. This is not a new idea promoted solely by RW.

 

Hasn't it been proven that a habit is formed or broken around 40 days, also? Hmmm....

 

I'm not really hung up on it. I just used that point to point out the fact that because he missed it on some of the 40 day scenarios at the beginning it just makes one a little leary of other passages he uses in the book. Personally, I'm not a big fan of using partial verses in the setting that RW did. It is just a little careless.
Also, his appendix concerning the translations comes across like he is having to justify his use of all of them. All that being said there are still valuable tools, examples to gain from going through the book.
BTW, I attend a good,growing baptist church in Ohio, we run about 300. Our pastor uses the KJV and nothingelse. Yet, he took us through the PDL while all the while he makes it plain that he thinks the KJV is the best version for english speaking people. We utilized the workbook that came with the 40 days of purpose. Ours was all KJV scripture in the workbook.
It was kinda funny reading the book with all the translations then going through the workbook with just the KJV. It was kind of confusing.
Maybe we are in somekind of transition at my church.
I'm just posting for fun. This PDL horse needs to be put out to pasture. God is in control of his church. Not the fundamentalists, evangelicals, contempary folk, traditionalist. etc....

 

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. At last, there is someone with whom I can debate this issue rationally. You are very perceptive in cutting to the basics here. IMHO, Mohler’s view of truth naturally leads to his preference of expository preaching. (I don’t know that he accepts expository preaching as the ONLY method but you are close.) The only objective truth is the revealed truth of God’s Word. All other knowledge is subjective content open to question, debate and refutation. We preach God’s truth through careful exegesis and cautious exposition. (We don’t make a point just because it preaches well.)

Allegorical preaching, on the other hand, is generally the fanciful product of a man’s mind. It is not based necessarily on objective truth. Due to the extensive use of the allegorical method, the man in the pew has come to believe that “the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean.” Every preach has a different sermon and meaning from the same text. Thus, the objectivity of truth, although professed in dogma, is lost in practice. Scripture, according to our understanding of truth, has one and only one meaning although many applications. In expositional preaching, we must preach the meaning and purpose of the text and then apply it to life situations.

Many preachers, IMHO, have found a looser, allegorical approach appeals more easily to people. Allegorical preaching may be encouraging and inspiring but the intended purpose and meaning of the text is lost. This applies in varying degrees across the spectrum from Joel Osteen to Rick Warren to Bill Hybels to Jack Hyles (deceased). Although theologically diverse and from different camps, RW and JH are comparable in their approach to Scripture and preaching in many ways. Both made Scripture fit their points more than preserving the original intent and purpose of the passage. Once one minimizes doctrine or fails to preach doctrine, regardless of theological persuasion, he is prone to preaching error and to promoting theological illiteracy among his following.

I say preach the text expositionally and make the application to life. Holding to a high view of truth and only one Scriptural meaning, we cannot and dare not make the content fit the point, even if the point may be good or even true. This is what I call the fixity of Scripture. It does not lend itself to various meanings, even though we may not always understand the correct interpretation. This is mandated by a high view of Scripture as objective truth—the only objective truth.

My point is that professing belief in objective truth is not sufficient. One must also work out his beliefs and principles by the methods he employs. Two men may both profess the standard of objective truth and mean different things. What they mean is further defined by how they apply their credo. This dovetails nicely with your point that “[d]octrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge.”

I heartily agree with you. I like the old Jewish idea that a thought or principle does not belong to you unless you apply it and put it into practice. IMHO, one does not believe what he claims if he doesn’t practice it. Of course, none of us can be 100% consistent with our principles—such is the human condition. However, principles and practice are irrevocable connected.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what other questions you are asking me to address. I will review the previous posts. The sheer volume has caused me to pick and choose.

Again, your post was refreshingly straightforward. Thank you.

 

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?"

 

I'm not sure I agree, but your post provokes thought.

 

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. At last, there is someone with whom I can debate this issue rationally. You are very perceptive in cutting to the basics here. IMHO, Mohler’s view of truth naturally leads to his preference of expository preaching. (I don’t know that he accepts expository preaching as the ONLY method but you are close.) The only objective truth is the revealed truth of God’s Word. All other knowledge is subjective content open to question, debate and refutation. We preach God’s truth through careful exegesis and cautious exposition. (We don’t make a point just because it preaches well.)

Allegorical preaching, on the other hand, is generally the fanciful product of a man’s mind. It is not based necessarily on objective truth. Due to the extensive use of the allegorical method, the man in the pew has come to believe that “the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean.” Every preach has a different sermon and meaning from the same text. Thus, the objectivity of truth, although professed in dogma, is lost in practice. Scripture, according to our understanding of truth, has one and only one meaning although many applications. In expositional preaching, we must preach the meaning and purpose of the text and then apply it to life situations.

Many preachers, IMHO, have found a looser, allegorical approach appeals more easily to people. Allegorical preaching may be encouraging and inspiring but the intended purpose and meaning of the text is lost. This applies in varying degrees across the spectrum from Joel Osteen to Rick Warren to Bill Hybels to Jack Hyles (deceased). Although theologically diverse and from different camps, RW and JH are comparable in their approach to Scripture and preaching in many ways. Both made Scripture fit their points more than preserving the original intent and purpose of the passage. Once one minimizes doctrine or fails to preach doctrine, regardless of theological persuasion, he is prone to preaching error and to promoting theological illiteracy among his following.

I say preach the text expositionally and make the application to life. Holding to a high view of truth and only one Scriptural meaning, we cannot and dare not make the content fit the point, even if the point may be good or even true. This is what I call the fixity of Scripture. It does not lend itself to various meanings, even though we may not always understand the correct interpretation. This is mandated by a high view of Scripture as objective truth—the only objective truth.

My point is that professing belief in objective truth is not sufficient. One must also work out his beliefs and principles by the methods he employs. Two men may both profess the standard of objective truth and mean different things. What they mean is further defined by how they apply their credo. This dovetails nicely with your point that “[d]octrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge.”

I heartily agree with you. I like the old Jewish idea that a thought or principle does not belong to you unless you apply it and put it into practice. IMHO, one does not believe what he claims if he doesn’t practice it. Of course, none of us can be 100% consistent with our principles—such is the human condition. However, principles and practice are irrevocable connected.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what other questions you are asking me to address. I will review the previous posts. The sheer volume has caused me to pick and choose.

Again, your post was refreshingly straightforward. Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]I also appreciate the to-the-point post.

 

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?" </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you are wrong. The time to make or break a habit, according to extensive scientific study, is roughly 6 weeks, not the 4 you claim.
Why did it rain for 40 days and nights? I don't know. Why, in your opinion, do you think 40 days is mentioned so often in the Bible if there is no significant meaning?

 

Noachian

There’s no reason for me to retract or apologize.

 

PDC is the Downgrade Controversy all over again.
If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

 

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?" </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you are wrong. The time to make or break a habit, according to extensive scientific study, is roughly 6 weeks, not the 4 you claim. </font>[/QUOTE]I don’t think so. Did you read the published research or is this hearsay? Can you give me the references so I can look up and read the study for myself? I’d be interested in the research design. Except for a few esoteric guys, such as me, no one is doing anything much with habituation and I’m not doing hands on research now, just theory. Everyone else is on the genetic binge.

I don’t know either. Perhaps it took 40 days to cover the mountain peaks. There is no necessary causal relationship by the frequency of a number appearing in unrelated phenomena. What does the length of a flood have to do with Christ’s fasting? People try to find special significance and hidden meaning in numbers. Whereas there is some symbolic meaning to certain numbers, I really don’t think God tried to obscure His revelation in some spiritual number scheme. This was the work of Jewish mystics. Methinks we are reading into Scripture when we begin to search for implication in things where the Scripture indicates no undertone.

 

Good observation! Yet, how many realize the outcome of the Downgrade Controversy?