Why is Rick Warren so controversial among Christians? CC

[Singingmom]

I keep coming across people who have very negative reactions to Rick Warren.I quoted him on Facebook yesterday. I had someone say that they agreed with the quote, although they weren't a fan of his. Then, I was listening to a cd by David Hazell, and he was having to qualify what he said about Rick Warren so he wouldn't get jumped on.

 

I don't get it. He seems fairly orthodox, and is very mission minded. I am not understanding what is so objectionable about him. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Crimson Wife]

He is the most prominent advocate for "feel good" Christianity that soft-pedals the Bible's teachings on sin and salvation. He seems like a decent guy personally but I find him very wishy-washy as a theologian. I'm not an Evangelical so I'd have theological differences with him anyways but I really dislike the way he waters down Scripture to make it more acceptable in mainstream modern American culture.

[shanvan]

He is the most prominent advocate for "feel good" Christianity that soft-pedals the Bible's teachings on sin and salvation. He seems like a decent guy personally but I find him very wishy-washy as a theologian. I'm not an Evangelical so I'd have theological differences with him anyways but I really dislike the way he waters down Scripture to make it more acceptable in mainstream modern American culture.

 

I understand this to be the main objection for most people.

[TXBeth]

He is the most prominent advocate for "feel good" Christianity that soft-pedals the Bible's teachings on sin and salvation. He seems like a decent guy personally but I find him very wishy-washy as a theologian. I'm not an Evangelical so I'd have theological differences with him anyways but I really dislike the way he waters down Scripture to make it more acceptable in mainstream modern American culture.

 

^^^^This! Precisely.

[JVA]

This might be a good place to start. There is always the good with the bad with humans. Thank the Lord for Jesus and His example!

 

http://www.challies.com/articles/on-visiting-saddleback-church

[Seasider]

He is seen as a key figure in the church growth movement. Many believe that this approach to church growth (via business-like marketing strategies) is contrary to the Spirit's role of drawing new believers. One element of the CGM seems to shift the major role of a church from a focus on discipling current members of the flock to making it appealing to seekers by lightening up the theology in the teaching.

 

IME, the problem is not that churches initiating this strategy become more seeker-sensitive. IME, they fail by becoming so seeker-centered that they cease to meet the needs of the existing membership.

 

I have seen 3 churches split over CGM related practices. It is sad, but I can understand why people have strong feelings about Rick Warren (on either side of the issue).

 

ETA From what I've seen, those who are passionate about evangelism tend to fall on one side of the fence, those who are passionate about deep, sound doctrine fall on the other side. That leaves a lot of folks feeling caught in the middle.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Seasider

[Heatherwith4]

I don't have a problem with him personally (meaning I think he's a nice person.) However, I feel that in his Bible studies he takes individual Bible verses out of context to make his own points.

[BigMamaBird]

I agree with the previous posters about watered down scripture. However, I read "Purpose Driven Life" at a time in my life where I really needed that message and it had a very positive impact on me at the time, so I'll always give him the benefit of a doubt.

[mykdsmomy]

I agree with the previous posters about watered down scripture. However, I read "Purpose Driven Life" at a time in my life where I really needed that message and it had a very positive impact on me at the time, so I'll always give him the benefit of a doubt.

 

 

Me too!:iagree:

 

I come from a very conservative Catholic upbringing and when I left that to go to a "non denominational" church, I thought I was simplifying my faith by focusing more on the bible. Ironically, it seems like religion got more complicated. It seems like every church has varying views on different verses in the bible. I, personally wonder, if this isn't exactly what satan (I have issues capitalizing his name) is trying to do....drive division between believers.

[I.Dup.]

Me too!:iagree:

 

I come from a very conservative Catholic upbringing and when I left that to go to a "non denominational" church, I thought I was simplifying my faith by focusing more on the bible. Ironically, it seems like religion got more complicated. It seems like every church has varying views on different verses in the bible. I, personally wonder, if this isn't exactly what satan (I have issues capitalizing his name) is trying to do....drive division between believers.

 

:iagree: except we left the division of protestantism to come into the Catholic Church. That's one of the things I like best about the Catholic Church, it's not divided like the protestant "church" is.

[Ellie]

He is seen as a key figure in the church growth movement. Many believe that this approach to church growth (via business-like marketing strategies) is contrary to the Spirit's role of drawing new believers. One element of the CGM seems to shift the major role of a church from a focus on discipling current members of the flock to making it appealing to seekers by lightening up the theology in the teaching.

 

IME, the problem is not that churches initiating this strategy become more seeker-sensitive. IME, they fail by becoming so seeker-centered that they cease to meet the needs of the existing membership.

 

I have seen 3 churches split over CGM related practices. It is sad, but I can understand why people have strong feelings about Rick Warren (on either side of the issue).

 

ETA From what I've seen, those who are passionate about evangelism tend to fall on one side of the fence, those who are passionate about deep, sound doctrine fall on the other side. That leaves a lot of folks feeling caught in the middle.

Not necessarily "church growth," because more people in the pews means that the Gospel has reached more people :-) but specifically the seeker-friendly model of church growth. I know you mentioned that, but really, it's the seeker-friendly mentality that is the problem.

 

We attended a seeker-friendly mega-church for about four years. It took three years for us to realize that there actually wasn't much depth of teaching going on, because of the seeker-friendly stuff. There was another year of pondering if we were really being fed spiritually. If we'd stayed in that city, we would have looked for spiritual meat elsewhere. As it was, when we arrived in Texas our list of must-haves for a new church was one which had never heard of Rick Warren or Alpha (not a Rick Warren thing, but often utilized by seeker-friendly churches) or The Message. It was tricky. :-o

[Seasider]

Actually, I noted the difference between seeker-SENSITIVE (aka "seeker FRIENDLY) and seeker-CENTERED.

 

Some churches actually create a fair balance; it takes careful, prayerful administration. I would classify that as seeker-sensitive. The ones that are failing are seeker-CENTERED. They tend to water down the doctrine in every avenue of ministry, overwork the established membership with lots of fluffy programs and outreach, and cease to meet the need for deep doctrinal study because there's only so much manpower to go around and by undertaking CGM practices, they choose to sacrifice that type of thing (in the name of evangelism, mind you). I do agree with you that the result is a general membership that is weakly rooted, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

In my personal experience, the biggest failures (church ruptures) occur when this new methodology is applied to a long-existing institution.

 

As far as the term "church growth movement," anyone interested can enter that into a search engine if they would care for an extended definition of what I mean when I use it in my posts.

[Singingmom]

He is the most prominent advocate for "feel good" Christianity that soft-pedals the Bible's teachings on sin and salvation. He seems like a decent guy personally but I find him very wishy-washy as a theologian. I'm not an Evangelical so I'd have theological differences with him anyways but I really dislike the way he waters down Scripture to make it more acceptable in mainstream modern American culture.

 

What is he watering down, exactly? Any specific examples you could give would be helpful. I hear from time to time general statements about him like this, but I haven't heard any specifics to know if I agree or disagree.

 

I have visited his church twice. My husband ( who was an SBC pastor) has met him, and is impressed with many of the things he does...including discipleship ( Sunday School) classes , and caring for the poor and needy in our world ( getting out of the pews and the four walls of the church to really impact society) .

 

I have only perused the Purpose Driven Life, and for the life of me, don't see why it should be controversial. The point of the book, from what I could see is that : This life is not about us, but about living for Christ. It goes through spiritual disciplines in a very simplistic, basic way to help ( new? ) Christians begin to develop habits of discipleship ( worship, prayer, scripture reading, service, etc. ) . How is it feel- good to say that life is not about you...it's about living for Christ? :)::confused:

[Ellie]

Actually, I noted the difference between seeker-SENSITIVE (aka "seeker FRIENDLY) and seeker-CENTERED.

 

Some churches actually create a fair balance; it takes careful, prayerful administration. I would classify that as seeker-sensitive. The ones that are failing are seeker-CENTERED. They tend to water down the doctrine in every avenue of ministry, overwork the established membership with lots of fluffy programs and outreach, and cease to meet the need for deep doctrinal study because there's only so much manpower to go around and by undertaking CGM practices, they choose to sacrifice that type of thing (in the name of evangelism, mind you). I do agree with you that the result is a general membership that is weakly rooted, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

In my personal experience, the biggest failures (church ruptures) occur when this new methodology is applied to a long-existing institution.

 

As far as the term "church growth movement," anyone interested can enter that into a search engine if they would care for an extended definition of what I mean when I use it in my posts.

Meh...they are the same to me. :) To try to describe each one so minutely is too much.

[Seasider]

Meh...they are the same to me. :) To try to describe each one so minutely is too much.

 

Well, that's your opinion. I'd appreciate your respect of mine. My family bears deep scars from this "minute difference."

[Ellie]

What is he watering down, exactly? Any specific examples you could give would be helpful. I hear from time to time general statements about him like this, but I haven't heard any specifics to know if I agree or disagree.

 

I have visited his church twice. My husband ( who was an SBC pastor) has met him, and is impressed with many of the things he does...including discipleship ( Sunday School) classes , and caring for the poor and needy in our world ( getting out of the pews and the four walls of the church to really impact society) .

 

I have only perused the Purpose Driven Life, and for the life of me, don't see why it should be controversial. The point of the book, from what I could see is that : This life is not about us, but about living for Christ. It goes through spiritual disciplines in a very simplistic, basic way to help ( new? ) Christians begin to develop habits of discipleship ( worship, prayer, scripture reading, service, etc. ) . How is it feel- good to say that life is not about you...it's about living for Christ? :)::confused:

Seeker-friendly churches, following the Rick Warren model, tend to not discuss sin or the penalty for sin, which results in no serious discussion about the need for repentance and salvation. The pastors tend to use several different Bible paraphrases, with some translations, in each sermon, as if they have decided to say *this* and look through many resources until they find the one that seems to fit. Because the teaching is so watered down, many have begun holding Alpha classes, which are good for basic baby Christians, but then there's no follow-through to deeper, meatier spiritual growth.

 

And then there's the music, which is generally very contemporary and shallow even when presented professionally, because the contemporary sound draws in younger people, and that's the emphasis: getting in the younger people. The singing has replaced actual worship ("worship" and "singing" are not synonyms), although of course people may worship while they sing; there's just nothing deeper.

[LarlaB]

My husband ( who was an SBC pastor) has met him, and is impressed with many of the things he does...including discipleship ( Sunday School) classes , and caring for the poor and needy in our world ( getting out of the pews and the four walls of the church to really impact society) .

 

I have only perused the Purpose Driven Life, and for the life of me, don't see why it should be controversial. The point of the book, from what I could see is that : This life is not about us, but about living for Christ. It goes through spiritual disciplines in a very simplistic, basic way to help ( new? ) Christians begin to develop habits of discipleship ( worship, prayer, scripture reading, service, etc. ) . How is it feel- good to say that life is not about you...it's about living for Christ? :)::confused:

 

:iagree:

 

This is my broad view as well. I have respect for the humility with which he seems to conduct his ministry- while it may not be my preference or style, he is promoting Christ.

[Singingmom]

This might be a good place to start. There is always the good with the bad with humans. Thank the Lord for Jesus and His example!

 

http://www.challies.com/articles/on-visiting-saddleback-church

 

Ok....thank you for giving me a link I could read. The only thing that seemed like it might be a concern to me was the very short " sinners prayer" that Challies quoted. What I don't know is the context.....did he really unpack the gospel message to his listeners before he had them pray that prayer? Did he also lead them in a prayer of repentance at some point? It's easy to just take a few words out of context, and paint a picture that isn't really accurate. I was overall not too impressed with the ( lack of) substance of Challie's assessment...Warren uses a lot of Bible versions? Ok.....but there were no examples of the gross theological error that has resulted from him using these different translations. He made it too easy to come to Christ? I think Christ himself made it easy ( remember the thief on the cross? ) . People can get saved and baptized in the same day? I see absolutely no problem with that. I am pretty sure the Apostles didn't require their " converts" to go to a believers class before getting baptized. There is nothing in the New Testament that says there should be a wait period between conversion and baptism.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok....thank you for giving me a link I could read. The only thing that seemed like it might be a concern to me was the very short " sinners prayer" that Challies quoted. What I don't know is the context.....did he really unpack the gospel message to his listeners before he had them pray that prayer? Did he also lead them in a prayer of repentance at some point? It's easy to just take a few words out of context, and paint a picture that isn't really accurate. I was overall not too impressed with the ( lack of) substance of Challie's assessment...Warren uses a lot of Bible versions? Ok.....but there were no examples of the gross theological error that has resulted from him using these different translations. He made it too easy to come to Christ? I think Christ himself made it easy ( remember the thief on the cross? ) . People can get saved and baptized in the same day? I see absolutely no problem with that. I am pretty sure the Apostles didn't require their " converts" to go to a believers class before getting baptized. There is nothing in the New Testament that says there should be a wait period between conversion and baptism.

 

I think that your original question was simply why he was controversial with some Christians. The fact that people are now starting to argue over whether those reasons for controversy are "good enough", is sort of funny. Controversy by definition is going to mean that some people are pro Rick Warren and some are not.

[Seasider]

I think that your original question was simply why he was controversial with some Christians. The fact that people are now starting to argue over whether those reasons for controversy are "good enough", is sort of funny. Controversy by definition is going to mean that some people are pro Rick Warren and some are not.

 

No, not funny. Ironic, maybe.

 

I think there's a lot of controversy because people are passionate about different aspects of the exercise of their faith, and because many have felt the effect of the institutional implementation of Rick Warren's teachings. It goes beyond The Purpose Driven Life (which, as others have said, is not a problem as an individual read).

[Singingmom]

Ok, Jean, fair enough. I will just sit back and listen to the reasons. I was thinking there would be more substantial, specific, theological complaints, since there seems to be such a strong negative reaction to him among MFW users ( the PDL is required reading in High School, and many seem to have a problem with it) , and among friends/Christians on message boards.

 

Maybe the main differences are methodological rather than theological?

[Crimson Wife]

Seeker-friendly churches, following the Rick Warren model, tend to not discuss sin or the penalty for sin, which results in no serious discussion about the need for repentance and salvation. The pastors tend to use several different Bible paraphrases, with some translations, in each sermon, as if they have decided to say *this* and look through many resources until they find the one that seems to fit. Because the teaching is so watered down, many have begun holding Alpha classes, which are good for basic baby Christians, but then there's no follow-through to deeper, meatier spiritual growth.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

It's all very fluffy and "feel good" Christianity lite. Jesus loves us and forgives us, absolutely. However, He also calls on us to stick to "the narrow path". Being a Christian is not all Kumbaya but about doing hard things and rejecting sin.

 

We are all at different points on our spiritual journeys, but I feel that Pastor Warren isn't doing enough to move his church members along in their journeys. He seems to encourage a very superficial understanding that has been assimilated to mainstream modern American culture instead of challenging that culture.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok, Jean, fair enough. I will just sit back and listen to the reasons. I was thinking there would be more substantial, specific, theological complaints, since there seems to be such a strong negative reaction to him among MFW users ( the PDL is required reading in High School, and many seem to have a problem with it) , and among friends/Christians on message boards.

 

Maybe the main differences are methodological rather than theological?

 

If by methodological you mean hermeneutical as well, then yes. But hermeneutics (the interpretation of the Bible) is extremely important in developing a theology. So many are worried that while his theology at this point tends to leave things out rather than put them in, his very process leaves it open for things to take an even broader divergence in belief. Also - the tendency to leave things out is important even in theology if you think (as I do) that all these different parts of Scripture need to go together like a jig-saw puzzle in order to give a full picture.

[Singingmom]

Some churches actually create a fair balance; it takes careful, prayerful administration. I would classify that as seeker-sensitive. The ones that are failing are seeker-CENTERED. They tend to water down the doctrine in every avenue of ministry, overwork the established membership with lots of fluffy programs and outreach, and cease to meet the need for deep doctrinal study because there's only so much manpower to go around and by undertaking CGM practices, they choose to sacrifice that type of thing (in the name of evangelism, mind you). I do agree with you that the result is a general membership that is weakly rooted, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

 

Just wanted to say that I agree with this, and think there is an important difference between the two. I do think that the Church needs to be sensitive to seekers ( this seems like a no- brainer! ) , but seeker- centered churches are setting themselves up for an implosion, IMO.

[momofkhm]

Thanks for asking the question! I'd been wondering the same thing myself. A good friend is very anti-RW but my denomination (though not the same as his) holds him up as good. So I was wondering. I can see her as someone who would be upset about the watered down scripture issue. The denom has a growth focus so his growth methods may be why they see RW as good. I don't know. My pastor does not water the scripture down so I'm not going to worry about it. :-)

[Singingmom]

If by methodological you mean hermeneutical as well, then yes. But hermeneutics (the interpretation of the Bible) is extremely important in developing a theology. So many are worried that while his theology at this point tends to leave things out rather than put them in, his very process leaves it open for things to take an even broader divergence in belief. Also - the tendency to leave things out is important even in theology if you think (as I do) that all these different parts of Scripture need to go together like a jig-saw puzzle in order to give a full picture.

 

I am acquainted with hermeneutical principles, since I had to take hermeneutics in Bible College, eons ago. So, I see what you are saying. The criticism is that he is choosing a translation/ paraphrase that suits the point he wants to make, rather than following proper hermeneutical methods, and staying faithful to the text? That is a big problem for me, when that happens ( and it is rampant in the Church at large).

 

My question is: is he leaving things out, or is he just being careful about how, when, and where he addresses the " hard issues" to his congregation. There are many visitors who do not yet have a relationship with Christ each week at Saddleback. He does have to be careful about how he approaches certain topics. I have worked with fragile, abuse victim, non believers in the past, and they would not have done well with a" turn or burn" approach. There had to be much sensitivity and discernment about how and when to bring up certain subjects. But, I agree, the Word if God cannot be compromised or things "left out" to make us more comfortable!

[ereks mom]

I have no idea what other people think, but I suspect that he draws fire because while he speaks out on topics of concern for our culture at large, he doesn't necessarily speak for the majority of grassroots Christians. He has a HUGE church, and I think many pastors have become enamored with Warren and want to follow his model and build megachurches so they can feel successful in ministry. But (speaking ONLY for myself here) megachurches are not necessarily a good thing. Too often, hurting seekers feel lost in the crowd in those huge churches, and they continue to bear their pain alone. Many people, myself included, prefer a more "personalized" atmosphere at church. I want to know everyone in my church by name, and I want them to know me. When I attend services, I want to feel that I am among dear friends--family, even.

[Juniper]

I am acquainted with hermeneutical principles, since I had to take hermeneutics in Bible College, eons ago. So, I see what you are saying. The criticism is that he is choosing a translation/ paraphrase that suits the point he wants to make, rather than following proper hermeneutical methods, and staying faithful to the text? That is a big problem for me, when that happens ( and it is rampant in the Church at large).

 

My question is: is he leaving things out, or is he just being careful about how, when, and where he addresses the " hard issues" to his congregation. There are many visitors who do not yet have a relationship with Christ each week at Saddleback. He does have to be careful about how he approaches certain topics. I have worked with fragile, abuse victim, non believers in the past, and they would not have done well with a" turn or burn" approach. There had to be much sensitivity and discernment about how and when to bring up certain subjects. But, I agree, the Word if God cannot be compromised or things "left out" to make us more comfortable!

 

In spiritual abuse terms this would be considered Bait and Switch or the "Trap". ;)

 

As to abuse victims, there should not be a turn and burn approach in the first place. :glare: So this doesn't make sense to me. Sure, as a victim I am going to be triggered by certain things, but you had better believe if I found out things were glossed over in the beginning to make things more palatable, I would never trust that type of church again.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Juniper

[Ellie]

Well, that's your opinion. I'd appreciate your respect of mine. My family bears deep scars from this "minute difference."

I don't believe I was being disrespectful.

[TXBeth]

This kind of approach to salvation

 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=2085

 

makes me want to :ack2:

[Jean in Newcastle]

This kind of approach to salvation

 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=2085

 

makes me want to :ack2:

 

Which adds nothing to the conversation.

[Carrie75]

Are Rick Warren and Joel Osteen considered to be similar in their preaching content?

[Heatherwith4]

This kind of approach to salvation

 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=2085

 

makes me want to :ack2:

Yikes. I was sort of ok with it until the 8 reasons not to procrastinate part.

[TXBeth]

Which adds nothing to the conversation.

 

Actually, it does. This kind of thing is exactly what makes him so controversial, which was the question in the OP. How is it not relevant?

[Jean in Newcastle]

http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/whatwebelieve/ Linked is their doctrinal statement.

[MFG]

This kind of approach to salvation

 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=2085

 

makes me want to :ack2:

This was from 2009. How have we not all heard about this monumental event in church history? /sarcasm

[Singingmom]

In spiritual abuse terms this would be considered Bait and Switch or the "Trap". ;)

 

As to abuse victims, there should not be a turn and burn approach in the first place. :glare: So this doesn't make sense to me. Sure, as a victim I am going to be triggered by certain things, but you had better believe if I found out things were glossed over in the beginning to make things more palatable, I would never trust that type of church again.

 

I am not talking about a " bait and switch" . Just that there needs to be sensitivity applied when dealing with people who do not yet know Christ. For example, read Acts 17, and see how Paul speaks to the men of Athens. He does not immediately pound them for their idolatry. Instead, he uses their ( false) religious tradition as a jumping off point to relate and connect. Some would call this " seeker sensitive" and compromising if a minister did the exact same thing today. Yes, he preaches Christ, but not in a way that hammers them for their sin right out of the gate. Does this make sense? That is what I was trying to say about being somewhat sensitive as over and against the " turn or burn" sort of approach that I have witnessed often growing up. It netted no converts, unsurprisingly ;) .

[Jean in Newcastle]

Actually, it does. This kind of thing is exactly what makes him so controversial, which was the question in the OP. How is it not relevant?

 

OK - I went back and read it again. I skimmed it the first time and had thought that these were people who had believed but were now just showing it in church membership. Which even on reading it again - it appears to be. Except that he does start out with an invitation to "open their heart to Jesus Christ". The link doesn't work for me to find out what exactly he means by that. If he is addressing people who do not understand the gospel message and haven't come to a decision on that, then I do have a problem with it. Local church membership itself doesn't mean too much to me. Membership in God's family does.

[Shamzanne]

This kind of approach to salvation

 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=2085

 

makes me want to :ack2:

 

Wow! Just try to picture Jesus selling people on joining the church this way. It IS disgusting.

 

Personally, I have an immediate reflex against any Christian movement, book, person, etc that is this popular and so strongly marketed.

 

We as american Christians often link our societal view of success with our idea of what it means to be blessed by God. Fidelity to Christ and His Word means giving up worldly ideas of what is successful. Having a huge church doesn't imply God's blessing any more than having a small church implies the lack of it.

[Juniper]

http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/whatwebelieve/ Linked is their doctrinal statement.

 

So, basically any Christians who believe in the Sacarments vs. Symbols are going to have a problem with that doctrinal statement. :001_smile:

[Jean in Newcastle]

So, basically any Christians who believe in the Sacarments vs. Symbols are going to have a problem with that doctrinal statement. :001_smile:

 

Yes. But they would have a problem with a lot of Protestant church doctrinal statements. (Not all)

[Juniper]

Yes. But they would have a problem with a lot of Protestant church doctrinal statements. (Not all)

 

I agree, but I think there are a lot more Protestants out there who do believe in Sacraments than we consciously realize. So when there is controversy it muddies the "why." It can be hard to articulate, because we often project that the person we are in conflict with is coming from a rather similar footing. (I am not saying this well, so please forgive me.)

 

Basically, one person may be saying on the outside, "He glosses over sin," but internally there is more going on. Their foundation is one that includes things like Baptism and Communion being sacramental. So, the unsacramental attitude towards those sacraments leads to a more casual approach to the sin elements.

 

I am not saying everyone does this, but I do think it can be an undercurrent that makes conversing on this a bit confusing.

[forty-two]

So, basically any Christians who believe in the Sacarments vs. Symbols are going to have a problem with that doctrinal statement. :001_smile:

 

This, and also that PDL, et al, are primarily focused on what *we* ought to do for God, to grow our faith, rather than on what God has done for us, how God is growing our faith. The Christian life seems to be, per Rick Warren, all about us, not all about Christ. Christ, the Gospel - it's just for "getting saved" - after God gets us in, it's all on us now to act worthy of it :glare:.

 

When, actually, the Gospel is central to our entire Christian life :). We are not just saved by Christ's death on the cross, we live by it, too. Grace alone isn't just about salvation, but about sanctification, too.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree, but I think there are a lot more Protestants out there who do believe in Sacraments than we consciously realize. So when there is controversy it muddies the "why." It can be hard to articulate, because we often project that the person we are in conflict with is coming from a rather similar footing. (I am not saying this well, so please forgive me.)

 

Basically, one person may be saying on the outside, "He glosses over sin," but internally there is more going on. Their foundation is one that includes things like Baptism and Communion being sacramental. So, the unsacramental attitude towards those sacraments leads to a more casual approach to the sin elements.

 

I am not saying everyone does this, but I do think it can be an undercurrent that makes conversing on this a bit confusing.

 

Yes, I can see this. I think that most of the controversy with Rick Warren though is that people who share his basic doctrinal statement have a problem with his hermeneutical method and his "sales" method (for lack of a better way of saying this).

[ColoNative]

We used to go to Saddleback - went there for years...it is a business more than a church and different Bible versions are used to support the topic...Another reason many feel he is not as effective as he could be is because of his waffling. Many are disappointed in his position on Prop 8 a while back in CA, which he stood and supported, but then he backed off in support of his friends who were opposed to it....

 

In contrast, in Costa Mesa, several miles from Saddleback is a church started by Chuck Smith back in the 60s. His entire premise was to teach through the Bible, cover to cover. Everyone told him it wouldn't work, that people would reject it because it wasn't relevant. Well, his church has grown to be one of the biggest churches in CA! And it's grown well beyond CA. He wasn't culturally relevant, yet people came because he simply taught the Bible. If we are called to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) as Chuck Smith does, then we can also wrongly divide the word of truth, which I think is what many Christians feel RW is doing....just my humble opinion.

Edited August 2, 2012 by ColoNative
clarification

[Ellie]

Yes.

[Ellie]

Here is the link to a site put up by John McArthur with several reviews and comments regarding Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven whatever.

[newlifemom]

Eh, met him, heard him speak. He did not preach a watered-down Gospel where I heard him [which was actually a fundraiser for housing for troubled teens and Sean Hannity, believe it or not, was there as well] Strange night. :001_huh:

 

Anyway, I get the impression that the his message was from his book and I did not have any theological problems with it. Not really my cuppa, but you know, I don't know his heart. I'll trust the Lord for that. :D

 

I find it interesting [ramping it up a notch now :tongue_smilie:] that John Piper sat on the same platform as Warren and apparently they had a long conversation which led Piper to invite him to his yearly conference. Now there's a bet I would have lost. Piper stated that Warren was very well versed in sound doctrine.

 

There you have it. One controversial figure endorsing another. :D

[Singingmom]

Interesting that Piper approves of him theologically....I don't think he would approve of me, actually, as I believe in women in ministry, etc. :tongue_smilie:

 

My husband points out that Warren got an mdiv from Southwestern Seminary. He is probably not going to drift too far from mainstream evangelical orthodoxy with a background like that. But, then, I guess some people on this board would question the orthodoxy of the SBC, too ;) .

[tex-mex]

In contrast, in Costa Mesa, several miles from Saddleback is a church started by Chuck Smith back in the 60s. His entire premise was to teach through the Bible, cover to cover. Everyone told him it wouldn't work, that people would reject it because it wasn't relevant. Well, his church has grown to be one of the biggest churches in CA! And it's grown well beyond CA. He wasn't culturally relevant, yet people came because he simply taught the Bible. If we are called to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) as Chuck Smith does, then we can also wrongly divide the word of truth, which I think is what many Christians feel RW is doing....just my humble opinion.

Coming from a different POV, but I used to think of Calvary Chapel as "milk" for beginning believers in Christ. I also think of Saddleback Church as the same for the person off the street who never heard of a Bible. After a while, the person gets tired of milk and needs to move on to another church to be fed "meat". Different churches for different people.

 

 

My husband points out that Warren got an mdiv from Southwestern Seminary. He is probably not going to drift too far from mainstream evangelical orthodoxy with a background like that. But, then, I guess some people on this board would question the orthodoxy of the SBC, too ;) .

We come from a non-denominational charismatic background. My cousin was recently ordained SBC. He was told from state and district officials that Rick Warren's church is under the cover of SBC. It is not its own denomination.