Rick Warren

[shannonL]

RC, you make an interesting point. I've went back and read alot of the "Sword and Trowel" issues that were written during that period. The simularites between those days and the church today are strikingly simular. It is kind of eerie even.
The article "Feeding sheep or Amusing Goats" by Spurgeon could have been written last week. I know those who love the CGM would beg to differ but that article hits the nail on the head. What is so good about it is the fact that ole Spurgeon wrote it. He has pretty good credentials. Not perfect by any means but he was preaching to twenty thoousand back in his day without a mike much less without all the theatrics that has to transpire today just to do a hour long church service. However the majority of mainstream evangelicalism believes you've got to have all that just to feed the sheep. Today preaching is more geared to not offend the seeker when in all reality if the sheep were getting a more fortified diet they would in turn bring others in without having to have everything but a bearded lady teaching a bible study on Sunday mornings.

BTW,IMHO expository preaching is the only way to go. verse by verse, book by book. Nothing beats it hands down. These little fill in the blank diddies are piffy but often times lack depth.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by richard abanes:
PAUL: And then, in the end, the one burning question that I had about Warren you couldn't answer.

RA: Again, like Mormons, you refer to answers as non-answers because you don't like the answers. ah well.

RA

RA, are you frustrated? You simply didn’t persuade Paul. You couldn’t convince him. Doesn’t he have the right to his own opinions? He doesn’t have to accept your answers—he can disagree. Did it ever occur to you that your answers are not as satisfying to others as they are for you? Now you are resorting to ridicule and negative associations to put down Paul.

I think you would assume an offended attitude if he did to you what you have done to him. Think about it. Adios.

 

[All about Grace]

Teacher,

I would simply say in response to your post on "allegorical" preaching that you make some jumps in logic. You are assuming that the goal of someone who does not preach verse-by-verse exposition is to make the verse fit what they are trying to communicate.

A lot of this debate centers on the starting point of preaching. Those who hold to a strict expository model believe the starting point must always be the text. This may or may not lend itself to applicable preaching. I would suggest that regardless of how well one is able to apply a certain passage of Scripture, that individual is still dictated by the passage at hand. In other words, if I am preaching verse-by-verse through a book and come to a passage dealing with the Sabbath day. I may well preach that passage in a way that is "applicable" to everyday life but at the same time irrelevant to the needs of my congregation (thus rendering it inapplicable to them). The message may be true but it may not be perceived as true b/c it is not engaging to the hearer or applicable to his/her life.

On the other side of this discussion, preaching may start with the needs of the crowd in mind. I personally believe there is a tendency among those who espouse the expository-only model to somehow believe people must be brought up to the Scriptures instead of Scripture being brought down to the people. In other words, it is not my job to make the Word of God authoritative. It is authoritative with or without me. Proponents of exclusive exposition seem to embrace a belief that it is undermining the authority of God's word to preach any other way. I believe it is my responsibility to bring the people up to the Bible. The Bible does not need defending. It is what it is -- God's Word. (By the way, I am talking exclusively about preaching here not the debate in past decades over inerrancy & inspiration). The Bible does not need me to stand up every Sunday and preach verse-by-verse through it in order for it to be authoritative or even considered authoritative by my congregation. The fact I apply biblical truth to their everyday needs affirms its authority, and perhaps affirms it even more than expositional preaching in the fact that they now understand the Bible is relevant to their present life.

Preaching with needs in mind presumes an authoritative Bible, whose truths address real life needs. In other words, as a pastor I am a student of my people, culture, and how the Bible addresses the issues of today. I seek to engage the people with the authoritative truth of God's word in a manner that will address their everyday life issues. I understand their needs and then apply biblical truth to them.

Obviously there are hidden needs that every individual has that he/she may or may not be aware of. I address those as well with biblical truth, but that is another discussion.

My point is this -- you assume that any preaching that is not expositional in nature is "allegorical" and thus dictated by subjectivism. I think this is a faulty assumption. I simply maintain that a preacher can begin with a foundation of biblical truth that assumes the authority of God's word and then seeks to engage the hearer through the direct application of that truth to their needs.

I do not believe in an either/or paradigm of preaching. I embrace more of a both/and model. I practice both exposition and series-needs based preaching. Exposition is easy for me. I spent my academic career in NT & theological studies, so expository preaching is easy for me. What is difficult is addressing real life needs in a biblically grounded, applicable manner.

If a person attends my church 80-85% of the Sundays in a year, I have about 20-24 hours to communicate to them how God's word applies to their life. Do you think it is wise to use all of those hours preaching straight through a single book that may or may not address the most pertinent needs in their life?

That's enough to chew on for now.

Unanswered questions -- pg 8, July 25, 10.03.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
Teacher,

I would simply say in response to your post on "allegorical" preaching that you make some jumps in logic. You are assuming that the goal of someone who does not preach verse-by-verse exposition is to make the verse fit what they are trying to communicate.

No, I assume they are subject to wandering far from the text and preaching their prejudices as God’s truth. Expositional preaching need not be verse-by-verse. It is not the sequencing that is the important thing but it the matter of trying to expound the original intent and purpose of the text. Allegorical, on the other hand, uses the text as a pretext to jump to another point.

A lot of this debate centers on the starting point of preaching. Those who hold to a strict expository model believe the starting point must always be the text. This may or may not lend itself to applicable preaching. I would suggest that regardless of how well one is able to apply a certain passage of Scripture, that individual is still dictated by the passage at hand. In other words, if I am preaching verse-by-verse through a book and come to a passage dealing with the Sabbath day. I may well preach that passage in a way that is "applicable" to everyday life but at the same time irrelevant to the needs of my congregation (thus rendering it inapplicable to them). The message may be true but it may not be perceived as true b/c it is not engaging to the hearer or applicable to his/her life.

On the other side of this discussion, preaching may start with the needs of the crowd in mind. I personally believe there is a tendency among those who espouse the expository-only model to somehow believe people must be brought up to the Scriptures instead of Scripture being brought down to the people. In other words, it is not my job to make the Word of God authoritative. It is authoritative with or without me. Proponents of exclusive exposition seem to embrace a belief that it is undermining the authority of God's word to preach any other way. I believe it is my responsibility to bring the people up to the Bible. The Bible does not need defending. It is what it is -- God's Word. (By the way, I am talking exclusively about preaching here not the debate in past decades over inerrancy & inspiration). The Bible does not need me to stand up every Sunday and preach verse-by-verse through it in order for it to be authoritative or even considered authoritative by my congregation. The fact I apply biblical truth to their everyday needs affirms its authority, and perhaps affirms it even more than expositional preaching in the fact that they now understand the Bible is relevant to their present life.

Preaching with needs in mind presumes an authoritative Bible, whose truths address real life needs. In other words, as a pastor I am a student of my people, culture, and how the Bible addresses the issues of today. I seek to engage the people with the authoritative truth of God's word in a manner that will address their everyday life issues. I understand their needs and then apply biblical truth to them.

Obviously there are hidden needs that every individual has that he/she may or may not be aware of. I address those as well with biblical truth, but that is another discussion.

I am in general agreement with what you say although I am somewhat uncomfortable with the emphasis upon needs. I am generally opposed to what I describe as needs-centered preaching. IMHO, one should preach the Word of God and the Holy Spirit uses it to meet the needs of the heart. However, this is another topic and we need not digress.

My point is this -- you assume that any preaching that is not expositional in nature is "allegorical" and thus dictated by subjectivism. I think this is a faulty assumption. I simply maintain that a preacher can begin with a foundation of biblical truth that assumes the authority of God's word and then seeks to engage the hearer through the direct application of that truth to their needs.

Allegorical preaching, I think, brings an element of subjectivism by its very nature.

I do not believe in an either/or paradigm of preaching. I embrace more of a both/and model. I practice both exposition and series-needs based preaching. Exposition is easy for me. I spent my academic career in NT & theological studies, so expository preaching is easy for me. What is difficult is addressing real life needs in a biblically grounded, applicable manner.

I do not think that expositional preaching need be dull, abstract, theoretical, etc. On the contrary, it ought to be alive, vibrant and applicable to daily life. It ought to be personal and down to earth. It’s only the inept preacher who makes it otherwise.

If a person attends my church 80-85% of the Sundays in a year, I have about 20-24 hours to communicate to them how God's word applies to their life. Do you think it is wise to use all of those hours preaching straight through a single book that may or may not address the most pertinent needs in their life?

No. Expositional preaching is not necessarily sequential.

That's enough to chew on for now.

Unanswered questions -- pg 8, July 25, 10.03.

I will check them out.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Your rant is biased and specious. You are trying to vilify me. I don’t have the time to waste. Give me a good reason why I should attempt to refute it.

I will take it by this response that you have a)never heard RW preach/teach or b) you have not heard him enough to claim to be "knowledgable" on the subject matter.

In either case, do you feel qualified to make the accusations against Warren's preaching that you have made? Honest question.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do have enough data to make an informed opinion. Although I am no expert on RW or PDL, I have read, heard and seen enough to understand something of his philosophy and direction. My major criticism is his minimizing of doctrine (heard him with my own ears) and his loose (careless?) handling of Scripture. He does say some appealing things. He is, I think, sincere and dedicated to his mission. However, his whole thrust and emphasis may be compared to Peter Drucker with a Christian emphasis. (I am nonplussed about the influence and connection with Ken Blanchard whose spiritual appetite is omnivorous.) RW is too inclusive for my beliefs. Methinks he is tainted by the culture from his driving desire to be culturally relevant (this is the post-modern influence) and broad. Basically, he is interpreting and incorporating a secular business philosophy of self-improvement (Drucker/Blanchard) into Christian ministry. Thus, PDL/PDC is an amalgamation of Christian thought, self-help and hip culture. Whereas he retains some traditional of the gospel language, it is stripped of its power and effectiveness. It becomes a personal appeal of self-improvement.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yeah, but his answers are not satisfying and cogent—they’re emotional and defensive.

You are kidding right? You asked yes-no questions as to whether RW preached on sin, etc. RA answered "yes" to these questions and then pointed you to specific examples. And his answers are "not satisfying and cogent."
</font>[/QUOTE]The point was not whether RW ever preached on sin but whether this was his manner of ministry. I accept, without contradiction, that RW does preach on sin to the naming of specific sins. The question is where does all this stand in relationship to his overall emphasis and ministry. There were less than satisfying answers to other questions as well. It was not that the answers were bad or untrue but they did not clarify the whole picture of RW’s ministry.

At least you hide your agenda well

What is my agenda? I am concerned about truth. Can you deny me that I am a person genuinely interested in truth? Or, must you denigrate my arguments by smearing me with innuendo—that I am somehow less than honorable?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are misconstruing and misrepresenting my points.

How?
</font>[/QUOTE]You question my motives. You read more into my posts than what I say. You take a point farther than I originally stated. You make assumptions about what I believe or think. You imply that I have a hidden agenda. You question my sincerity by insinuating an ulterior motive. You make straw men of my arguments instead of meeting and contradicting head-on.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This is specious reasoning. Your premises are inaccurate and your conclusion is wrong.

Again -- show us how.
</font>[/QUOTE]Let the readers decide if they are interested. You are asking too much in way of time and commitment for me to do. Go back and read some of our interchanges. You may find a clue if you read openly and critically. This is a neat trick, I’ve used it myself, to overwhelm your opponent with work. Honestly, I have more important things to do. I do know that I’m leaving the door open for you to razz me and say that I can’t answer. On the other hand, I’m counting on you to have the character not take unfair advantage of me because I’ve given you the truth—no extraneous motives. Furthermore, I don't see anything that can be constructively added to the arguments. We've already plowed this same ground.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes, and the question is whether you are reaching them with your soft-soap sell.

Is this a "soft-soap sell"? People are sinners and are going to Hell without Jesus Christ and it is only by recognizing your sin and trusting in Jesus alone that one can be delivered from this deserved punishment.
</font>[/QUOTE]My concern is that many folks are getting a placebo instead of the real thing. People are searching—look at the Mormons, JW’s, etc.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is an unsaved church member or church attendee any better than a lost non-attendee?

Eternally no.

On the other hand if the church is creating an environment where these Hellbounders will hear the gospel consistently, I would say they are better off hearing than not hearing. They are at least hearing the message -- we become the means by which God calls.

How will they hear w/o a preacher?
</font>[/QUOTE]This is why we need strong preaching against sin and a clear Gospel message.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You may be giving them a false hope and making them seven times more the child of Hell.

Or you may be giving them the only true hope of the world -- Jesus Christ.
</font>[/QUOTE]Again, it must be clearly the Gospel, not a self-help presentation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is a growing alarm of people occupying the pews who are no different from the world. They have no evidence of salvation. More and more we are hearing of large numbers unsaved church members. Could this be attributed to shoddy evangelism?

It can more likely be attributed to a lack of evangelism. </font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary, I think it is lack of an emphasis of sin and the sinfulness of sin coupled with a clear presentation of the Gospel without any cultural dilution.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Your rant is biased and specious. You are trying to vilify me. I don’t have the time to waste. Give me a good reason why I should attempt to refute it.

I will take it by this response that you have a)never heard RW preach/teach or b) you have not heard him enough to claim to be "knowledgable" on the subject matter.

In either case, do you feel qualified to make the accusations against Warren's preaching that you have made? Honest question.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do have enough data to make an informed opinion. Although I am no expert on RW or PDL, I have read, heard and seen enough to understand something of his philosophy and direction. My major criticism is his minimizing of doctrine (heard him with my own ears) and his loose (careless?) handling of Scripture. He does say some appealing things. He is, I think, sincere and dedicated to his mission. However, his whole thrust and emphasis may be compared to Peter Drucker with a Christian emphasis. (I am nonplussed about the influence and connection with Ken Blanchard whose spiritual appetite is omnivorous.) RW is too inclusive for my beliefs. Methinks he is tainted by the culture from his driving desire to be culturally relevant (this is the post-modern influence) and broad. Basically, he is interpreting and incorporating a secular business philosophy of self-improvement (Drucker/Blanchard) into Christian ministry. Thus, PDL/PDC is an amalgamation of Christian thought, self-help and hip culture. Whereas he retains some traditional of the gospel language, it is stripped of its power and effectiveness. It becomes a personal appeal of self-improvement.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yeah, but his answers are not satisfying and cogent—they’re emotional and defensive.

You are kidding right? You asked yes-no questions as to whether RW preached on sin, etc. RA answered "yes" to these questions and then pointed you to specific examples. And his answers are "not satisfying and cogent."
</font>[/QUOTE]The point was not whether RW ever preached on sin but whether this was his manner of ministry. I accept, without contradiction, that RW does preach on sin to the naming of specific sins. The question is where does all this stand in relationship to his overall emphasis and ministry. There were less than satisfying answers to other questions as well. It was not that the answers were bad or untrue but they did not clarify the whole picture of RW’s ministry.

At least you hide your agenda well

What is my agenda? I am concerned about truth. Can you deny me that I am a person genuinely interested in truth? Or, must you denigrate my arguments by smearing me with innuendo—that I am somehow less than honorable?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are misconstruing and misrepresenting my points.

How?
</font>[/QUOTE]You question my motives. You read more into my posts than what I say. You take a point farther than I originally stated. You make assumptions about what I believe or think. You imply that I have a hidden agenda. You question my sincerity by insinuating an ulterior motive. You make straw men of my arguments instead of meeting and contradicting head-on.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This is specious reasoning. Your premises are inaccurate and your conclusion is wrong.

Again -- show us how.
</font>[/QUOTE]Let the readers decide if they are interested. You are asking too much in way of time and commitment for me to do. Go back and read some of our interchanges. You may find a clue if you read openly and critically. This is a neat trick, I’ve used it myself, to overwhelm your opponent with work. Honestly, I have more important things to do. I do know that I’m leaving the door open for you to razz me and say that I can’t answer. On the other hand, I’m counting on you to have the character not take unfair advantage of me because I’ve given you the truth—no extraneous motives. Furthermore, I don't see anything that can be constructively added to the arguments. We've already plowed this same ground.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes, and the question is whether you are reaching them with your soft-soap sell.

Is this a "soft-soap sell"? People are sinners and are going to Hell without Jesus Christ and it is only by recognizing your sin and trusting in Jesus alone that one can be delivered from this deserved punishment.
</font>[/QUOTE]My concern is that many folks are getting a placebo instead of the real thing. People are searching—look at the Mormons, JW’s, etc.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is an unsaved church member or church attendee any better than a lost non-attendee?

Eternally no.

On the other hand if the church is creating an environment where these Hellbounders will hear the gospel consistently, I would say they are better off hearing than not hearing. They are at least hearing the message -- we become the means by which God calls.

How will they hear w/o a preacher?
</font>[/QUOTE]This is why we need strong preaching against sin and a clear Gospel message.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You may be giving them a false hope and making them seven times more the child of Hell.

Or you may be giving them the only true hope of the world -- Jesus Christ.
</font>[/QUOTE]Again, it must be clearly the Gospel, not a self-help presentation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is a growing alarm of people occupying the pews who are no different from the world. They have no evidence of salvation. More and more we are hearing of large numbers unsaved church members. Could this be attributed to shoddy evangelism?

It can more likely be attributed to a lack of evangelism. </font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary, I think it is lack of an emphasis of sin and the sinfulness of sin coupled with a clear presentation of the Gospel without any cultural dilution. </font>[/QUOTE]That's a lot to read!

 

[richard abanes]

PAID: My major criticism is his minimizing of doctrine (heard him with my own ears)

RA: Please feel free to quote it and tell us where you "HEARD" it.

At a PDC conference? During a sunday sermon? Where?

Please provide it and let's match whatever quote you may (or may not) have with: 1) what he saying in context; and b) what he has said about doctrine in his various presentations and teachings (including what Saddleback teaches on this issue—and the church DOES have a teaching on this issue; do you know it or can you quote it?).

Since this is a MAJOR criticism you have, I look forward to you further explaining and documenting it.

RA

RAbanes

 

[guitarpreacher]

If you think PDC is post-modern, you don't understand either term.

 

[All about Grace]

No, I assume they are subject to wandering far from the text and preaching their prejudices as God’s truth.

You assume too much. Preferred preaching method has little to do with preaching prejudices. Some of the most highlighted expository preachers in evangelicalism are also some of the most notorious for preaching their own prejudices. No need to name names here.

Expositional preaching need not be verse-by-verse. It is not the sequencing that is the important thing but it the matter of trying to expound the original intent and purpose of the text.

Most proponents of exposition only encourage verse-by-verse, through a book preaching. Otherwise they suggest there is the same danger of which you warn.

Allegorical, on the other hand, uses the text as a pretext to jump to another point.

I don't accept your categorization for all non-expository preaching as allegorical. Nevertheless, all "allegorical" preaching does not follow this pattern, especially if it is needs based - biblically grounded.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the emphasis upon needs. I am generally opposed to what I describe as needs-centered preaching.

Most ministries, regardless of the preferred method of their lead pastor, are based on needs. Needs based preaching & ministry follows the model of Jesus Christ himself. I am not saying it is prescribed. I am simply saying Jesus practiced needs based ministry.

Also needs based preaching does not mean the preacher is only concerned with he perceives are the needs of the people. He also presumes there are hidden needs, that the people are not even aware of, that must be addressed as well.

IMHO, one should preach the Word of God and the Holy Spirit uses it to meet the needs of the heart.

Even with this paradigm, the preacher is left with choices to make regarding text, application, interpretation, etc. I think it is naive to believe any preachers do not make choices as to how they will apply biblical truth.

IMHO one should follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and also be aware of the needs of the heart. Every preacher should have an ear to his people and an eye on the culture.

Allegorical preaching, I think, brings an element of subjectivism by its very nature.

As does expository.

I do not think that expositional preaching need be dull, abstract, theoretical, etc. On the contrary, it ought to be alive, vibrant and applicable to daily life. It ought to be personal and down to earth. It’s only the inept preacher who makes it otherwise.

Agreed. Not the point.

No. Expositional preaching is not necessarily sequential.

But is most often practiced and prescribed in that fashion.

Thus, PDL/PDC is an amalgamation of Christian thought, self-help and hip culture. Whereas he retains some traditional of the gospel language, it is stripped of its power and effectiveness. It becomes a personal appeal of self-improvement.

You are entitled to this opinion. I believe it is unsubstantiated by any point you have raised. You have yet to show with hard data how these things are true.

 

[dianetavegia]

I'm really surprised at how many people will tear this man's book apart word by word and yet don't do the same to a Joyce Meyer, Elizabeth George, Beth Moore, Kay Arthur!

Look at this, if you're interested.

http://www.pfo.org/wan-star.htm

http://www.ontruth.com/joycemeyer.html

http://www.pfo.org/preacher.htm

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by guitarpreacher:
If you think PDC is post-modern, you don't understand either term.

Evidently you don't understand what you read. I never wrote that they were post-modern. I did say they had evidence of post-modern influences in their philosophy and approach. Do you understand the difference?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
I'm really surprised at how many people will tear this man's book apart word by word and yet don't do the same to a Joyce Meyer, Elizabeth George, Beth Moore, Kay Arthur!

Look at this, if you're interested.

http://www.pfo.org/wan-star.htm

http://www.ontruth.com/joycemeyer.html

http://www.pfo.org/preacher.htm

Hey dearie, they're just not under discussion here. We must limit ourselves to the discusion at hand. Otherwise, it is a free-for-all. Start a thread on one of them and I'll rip into their heresy or un-Biblical teachings.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by richard abanes:
PAID: My major criticism is his minimizing of doctrine (heard him with my own ears)

RA: Please feel free to quote it and tell us where you "HEARD" it.

At a PDC conference? During a sunday sermon? Where?

Please provide it and let's match whatever quote you may (or may not) have with: 1) what he saying in context; and b) what he has said about doctrine in his various presentations and teachings (including what Saddleback teaches on this issue—and the church DOES have a teaching on this issue; do you know it or can you quote it?).

Since this is a MAJOR criticism you have, I look forward to you further explaining and documenting it.

RA

RAbanes

This is not an academic exercise. It is a general discussion where the participants are knowledgeable enough of the topic to participate intelligently. What you are doing is simply a ploy to win a point. You are putting the burden of work on me probably realizing that I have neither the time nor inclination to research and provide pedantic proof and documentation. I am not berating you (I would do the same for you in a heartbeat) but I am exposing your method by pointing it out.

If you will be completely fair, candid and honest, you know and will admit that RW talks down doctrine. Any number of his sermons, speeches, interviews, etc. could be used as examples. I actually have a link online where he disparages doctrine in an interview. I was going to post the link but I decided against it because I am NOT going to play your game. You can find any number of places where RW says that doctrine is divisive or he is more interested in following Jesus than preaching doctrine. He just wants to get everyone following Jesus. This may sound spiritual but it is pure unadulterated pabulum. To follow Jesus is to obey (do, perform) his teachings (doctrine). See Matthew 7:24-28. It is not about some mystical experience or WWJD. Furthermore, there’s a lot of talk about loving Jesus but to love Jesus is to obey Jesus and to do His commandments (i.e. doctrine, teaching).

This is a pointless endeavor. No matter what I can say or document will persuade you. You will deny and call for further proof. You are going to believe what you want to believe. Facts, truth and reasoning are not things that drive you. You see what you want to see. Such is the state of modernity and you are cool with the culture. I am from a different world philosophically since I am anti-modernity. Philosophically, I identify largely with Southern Agrarianism and non-establishment Baptist Christianity. I think in a different paradigm—a moral and ethical thetical-antithetical mode. Your feelings overshadow your reason. You have quoted and replied but you have not engaged and refuted my argument. It may beyond your experience and knowledge.

Have a really nice day.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Thus, PDL/PDC is an amalgamation of Christian thought, self-help and hip culture. Whereas he retains some traditional of the gospel language, it is stripped of its power and effectiveness. It becomes a personal appeal of self-improvement.

You are entitled to this opinion. I believe it is unsubstantiated by any point you have raised. You have yet to show with hard data how these things are true. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]We’ve plowed this furrow before. There is no hard data such as scientific data that we can quantify and analyze. This is not to say that we cannot know and arrive at a good conclusion. Not all opinions are created equal. Some stink and others are plain wrongheaded. What you are asking is inappropriate to this debate. If it were suitable, then you could refute my arguments by presenting hard data to the contrary. You can’t. All you can do is claim that I have not proven my case.

To understand my argument, you must be willing to see and interpret the data as I have proposed. Otherwise you cannot understand my argument and evaluate it. to see and interpret as I do does preclude your agreement with me. It is just that you are willing to see things as I see them. I perfectly understand your viewpoint but you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend mine.

Let’s break it down and follow some simple paths.
1. Would you agree that RW is a child of the culture? Has he been influenced by modern American culture? Listen to his language, style, talk, attitudes, etc. It’s all cultural relevant so it is foolish to deny the culture’s influence.
2. Do you agree that he downgrades the importance of doctrine? He emphasizes the unity of Christianity (ecumenicism) and following Jesus (whatever that means) over doctrine. Do you really think RW values doctrine as highly as say Al Mohler?
3. Do you agree that he shares common ideas and methods with many in the self-improvement community (e.g. Blanchard, et. al.)? Has he been influenced by ideas in this movement? He likes Peter Drucker and his philosophy.
4. Do you agree that he retains the traditional Christian language of sin, salvation, repentance, etc. although his meanings may be slightly different from traditional theology (let’s say hard-core Reformed)? Just for fun, I would like to hear RW define these words he uses.

If you can agree somewhat with the four preceding questions, then you are close to admitting the aforementioned point that you denied.

What I don’t understand is why you are denying that he does these things. They appear obvious to me. However, I think you, unlike me, don’t have a problem with these items. So, I would expect you to say, “Yeah, so what?” Why are you intent on making RW appear as some kind of Fundamentalist Baptist? He ain’t.

 

[shannonL]

RA,

Saw your book in a "Berean" Christian Bookstore. I spent some time reading through it.

I wonder if Harper Collins put a delay on the "pyromarketing book" by that other fellow so you could get yours out first? I think yours would probably help to throw a little cold water on the other guy's book. I'm not saying that is why you wrote it at all I'm just saying maybe there is something to what Tim Callie's blog says concerning that issue. Maybe there are some behind the scene things going on. I mean your book comes out of nowhere and its already in stores. Yet, a guy that might present a little different view of the PDL, one that might be negative has a hard time getting it out there.

I must say I believe the part about RW and Shuller. Just by reading things about Shueller in the past tells me he just wants to help prop himself up by using RW.

You know though, alot of RW's critics aren't going to be satisfied with your book. Your to close to the guy that wrote it that is what will be said. Having said that did you ask RW permission to write this book? If you did why did he grant it. Most men of his stature would say let the critics say their peace and let it roll. Not saying that he didn't.
If he did say he didn't mind your writing the book then that means he doesn't like the criticism he is receiving. It also implies that he has you fighting his battles for him and not himself. I was always given the advice not to respond to my critics.

Did you pen this book on your own without ever asking RW?

I'm just saying it makes RW look a little weak. If he thought it was cool that YOU respond to HIS critics. I say either he responds himself or not at all. Unless of course you wrote it without ever consulting him about it. Did you.

Some of your answers were cool some not. Alot of your responses were kind of like this "Well everybodyelse is doing it.

I just think your have to much of a bias to write a book with the nature of it being like it is for RW's critics to take it seriously. That being said I do believe the book is truthful. You did what you felt led to do I suppose.

I know your thinking "Just can't please these guys" Well its not like that. These thoughts just came to me as I was skimming over your book.

I gotta wonder though if your book isn't apart of the whole marketing scheme of the PDL. I mean your book has the same color scheme on the cover just reversed. Fits in nicely between a stack of PDL books. I don't know but you gotta wonder. pyromarketing is getting held up your pro PDL sails right through . I don't know. You know what they say "Timing is everything"

 

[All about Grace]

1. Would you agree that RW is a child of the culture? Has he been influenced by modern American culture? Listen to his language, style, talk, attitudes, etc. It’s all cultural relevant so it is foolish to deny the culture’s influence.

Yes. RW is a child and student of culture. So was Paul. So am I. Every pastor/preacher/ministry is relevant to some cultural period ... they may be relevant to 1930 but they are relevant to some time/culture.

Would you agree that you are a product of culture?

2. Do you agree that he downgrades the importance of doctrine? He emphasizes the unity of Christianity (ecumenicism) and following Jesus (whatever that means) over doctrine.

No. I would simply say doctrine is the foundation upon which he builds. It is a given. What he believes shapes what he does. He believes people are going to Hell without Jesus, thus that DOCTRINE shapes how he does ministry, how he teaches, etc. The unity of Christianity is based on doctrine...common belief.

Do you really think RW values doctrine as highly as say Al Mohler?

Not a fair question. Just b/c Mohler has given his life to the study of theology, does not mean he "values" doctrine over someone who has not. Do you think RW values evangelism over AM? Do you think RW values life change over AM? Do you think RW values souls over AM?

These are unfair questions. Value is not based entirely on my emphasis in ministry. I value breath, but I have not given my life to the study of it. Do I value it any less than someone who studies it? No. No breath = no life. No doctrine = no foundation.

3. Do you agree that he shares common ideas and methods with many in the self-improvement community (e.g. Blanchard, et. al.)? Has he been influenced by ideas in this movement? He likes Peter Drucker and his philosophy.

He is student of culture and part of that study is the study of leadership, management, organization, etc. Does RW glean from the studies of a plethora of individuals? Yes. Is RW a "self-help" preacher in the categorical terms of say a Robert Schuller? no.

4. Do you agree that he retains the traditional Christian language of sin, salvation, repentance, etc. although his meanings may be slightly different from traditional theology (let’s say hard-core Reformed)?

Hard core Reformed is not necessarily traditional theology. Do RWs beliefs about these issues differ from how they have been understood throughout church history? No. Is RW a Calvinist? No.

His definitions differ from a certain element of Christianity. So do yours and mine.

What I don’t understand is why you are denying that he does these things.

Because the way you construct your questions leads to a faulty conclusion (RW is a self-improvement preacher, he does not have a proper view of sin and salvation, etc.). While there is an element of truth to each of your statements, they are distorted enough to alter accuracy.

Your accusations against Warren far exceed your simple conclusions here.

They appear obvious to me.

Of course they do.

However, I think you, unlike me, don’t have a problem with these items.

I don't have a problem saying I believe every preacher should be a student of his culture. I don't have a problems saying I believe one can learn principles of leadership from other proven leaders. I don't have a problem saying theology and methodology are not one and the same.

I do have a problem with the suggestion someone like me does not value doctrine as much as someone God has called specifically to that role. I have spent a lot of time, money, and energy investing in the study of something you would suggest I do not value as highly as a theologian.

Why are you intent on making RW appear as some kind of Fundamentalist Baptist? He ain’t.

And there is something with which I can agree.