give it up already (or, now we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel)
The latest attack on Warren is really a good laugh. CRN and Watcher’s Lamp actually suggest that Rick Warren is suffering from Oppositional Defiant Disorder mixed with a brainwashing strategy called dialectic process. I am no psychologist, but from my own studies in psychology, I can assure you that this is far from the truth. They are really stretching for a story now.
Here’s the funny thing. They link to a psych website that describes the disorder (which doesn’t describe Warren at all). They then put their own spin on it. For example:
Psych website description:
A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present:
- often loses temper
- often argues with adults
- often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults’ requests or rules
- often deliberately annoys people
- often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
- is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
- is often angry and resentful
- is often spiteful or vindictive
Watcher’s Lamp description:
This dynamic is put into motion when a very public and influential person paints a select group of people in a negative light, (dialectic) giving the impression this group is the antagonist (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and the potential cause for failure in achieving a desired outcome for the community.
10 out of the 11 sources were from other watch doggie sites and no scriptures was used (the famous accusation of us evil emerging blogs). That means over 90% of their reporting sources were from within the house! Every single supposed quote was not linked back to a primary source (that would be healthy research). The links were also back to watch doggie sites.
Look, I am not a huge Rick Warren or Purpose Driven fan myself. I just think this guy, his church and his ministry are getting and incredibly unfair amount of criticism from incredibly unintelligent sources and even more unprofessional researchers and writers. Its one thing to voice your opinion, but it’s another thing to write over 20 articles in a matter of days to slaughter a fellow brother. Seriously, check out CRN and tell me if someone isn’t a bit paranoid about the Purpose Driven ministries with all the posts they have made. Ether lay off the articles or find something substantial to attack the man with!
74 Comments(+Add)
Wow,
That sounds like Ken… you know the guy that never gets angry… but says nothing but bitter and hateful things… I guess you can’t get angry if you are already an angry person! ; )
The funniest thing is that in this Psych profile they are referring to themselves as “adults” and Rick as a child… interesting is that there is abuse psych profile out there… http://www.watchman.org/profile/abusepro.htm
that says:
“#1) Authoritarian
The most distinctive characteristic of a spiritually abusive religious system, or leader, is the over-emphasis on authority. Because a group claims to have been established by God Himself the leaders in this system claim the right to command their followers.
This authority supposedly comes from the position they occupy. In Matthew 23:1-2 Jesus said the Scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat,” a position of spiritual authority. Many names are used but in the abusive system this is a position of power, not moral authority. The assumption is that God operates among His people through a hierarchy, or “chain of command.” In this abusive system unconditional submission is often called a “covering,” or “umbrella of protection” which will provide some spiritual blessing to those who fully submit. Followers may be told that God will bless their submission even if the leadship is wrong. It is not their place to judge or correct the leadership – God will see to that.”
These people in their attack against Rick Warren really fit the rest of this profile also… so I think they better be careful as far as using profiles…
Blessings,
iggy
I think you may have been too quick to pull the trigger…
If you read the post, you will find the Oppositional Defiant Disorder is how people like me are painted by pastors like Rick Warren, not Rick Warren “having ODD”.
I invite you to read the posts again…
Jim,
That does make more sense and I see Rick’s point even clearer… as it seems that many that attack Rick are very immature and often as I interact with them the show all the signs above… especially if I try to point out they have misrepresented the scripture… I am put down, called names, told I am not saved…
Then i am harassed and slandered even after I have backed down and apologized if I had offended them in some way…. yet they then keep up the attack… mocking forgiveness.
To me if fits those watchdogs… very very well… and considering that Rick most likely has at least a dozen counselors on staff… I am sure that he has enough educational backing to what he says… unlike say… Ken… who has no educational backing…
I would take Rick’s word as having more authority in this situation over those of CRN or SOL… or any indepedants out there thinking that to attack the Body of Christ is a righteous thing…
2 Corinthians 11: 13-15:
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
I think one accuser of the brethren is enough… and why would people at CRN and SOL want to help him do his job?
Again, I thought this a great example of the pot calling the kettle black… so thanks for clearing it up and letting us know that it was Rick pretty much pegging certain watchdogs… to a “T”.
Blessings,
iggy
iggy,
You certainly do appear to have a martyr’s complex…maybe you should get some help.
What people need to realize is that what a lot of this is the last throes of a good ol’ fashioned power struggle within the SBC. Warren has ticked a lot of the good ol’ boys off in the SBC, and now it seems that the SBC leadership is pretty much backing him on everything, so there are a handful of the traditionalists who are fuming mad. In one sense the EC thing is an extension of this, but it seems to have gotten some other denominations and traditions drawn into the fray.
The one thing that I find odd is that critics keep on claiming that they not Calvinists, but the whole issue of election seems to be the biggest point of contention.
Oh Ken,
Of all people don’t cast that stone at me… LOL! It is Rick that is being attacked… not me…
If you can’t tell the difference…
Yet, you see when it comes to people like you and your friends one does not have to have a complex… you do hate people like me and call us names and falsely accuse us of a great many things… that is not a complex… you are like those who say the Jews have a complex as the Holocaust never really happened…
It was people like you and Jonny Mac that declared war… when there is not fight over truth whatsoever… only over Jonny Mac’ version of it… so as far as a martyrs complex… I think you and your friends are sociopaths that think that when a person stands up to defend themselves after you give a slap down, you are the martyr because they are standing up again…
Like a schoolyard bully you can give it but not take it… you can taunt, but if punched in the nose make up the story that you were punched undeservedly.
So, I think Rick’s assessment of you all is very accurate… in fact I think that you have a Napoleon complex as you seem to get abusive when anyone questions you “authority”… even when you have none over them…
Be Blessed!
iggy
Iggy – I do not attack Rick Warren and nobody else should either. I am adressing his views and his writings. When Warren says that he can “almost guarantee” that any unsaved guest that is brought to the Easter service at Saddleback will get saved, well, that is not only bellecose but it reveals how much faith he places on his presentation.
That type of wild talk is exactly what the reformed group jump on because it completely misrepresents the true free will position. Warren really believes that the major reason that people don’t come to Christ is because they haven’t been presented with the gospel in a way that will appeal to them. Rick even said that if he knew a person’s background and perspectives he would be able to craft a presentation of the gospel that would fit their mindset and lead them to Christ. Bad theology. The main reason people don’t come to Christ is that they love their sin and the devil has blinded them.
Additionally, the “feed the poor” aspect of Warren’s message is spot on and should be a challenge to all of us. But since he works in alliance with unsaved people the “cup of cold water in my name” essence is completely removed and most dangerous of all presents a social gospel. So instead of orthopraxis you end up with just praxis which even satinists can help with. He mixes the sacred with the profane. Why?
Because as I alluded to he believes that if he can build bridges, even when the Scriptures teach otherwise, he can win people to Christ. And finally, in a misguided attempt to put a cherry on the top of this process he presents a benign and equation-like gospel that requires no more than a mental understanding of the facts and a repeating of a form prayer. And the reason for the entire process is because he and others have taken the free will position at the expense of the sinfulness of man and the words of our Lord which clearly teach a narrow path to life with few as opposed to a wide path to destruction with many.
I personally believe he is well meaning but way off course. I am not attacking him personally but his view of Biblical salvation.
Phil,
Good points! The thing is if one reads Calvin, “election” should be a point of total humility and even make one seek God more as one does not know if they are “elect” until they are judged so. That is when the “sons of God are revealed”.
Yet, it seems to be a point of arrogance with many who deem themselves elect.
I seem myself elect but only because of the Grace and Mercy of God… in that I must give grace and mercy as it was given to me… forgive others and you have been forgiven (Col 3:12)
It seems that some know nothing of Grace or mercy… and forgiveness is only for the “elect”… in that an elitism has developed and we have a bunch of people who think they need to only forgive conditionally, or that they only have to love their “brothers” and no one else.
You see… even though they have no authority over Rick, they despise Rick’s authority and slander him… I have seen these people even slander Jesus Himself and call Him a dork as they deemed a painting of the verse “behold I stand at the door and knock” as unbiblical. That is how arrogant they are.
Here is that reference… it is the same person Ken used with the “open letter to Frank Page”.
http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/2007/04/this-is-lie.html
Blessings,
iggy
Rick,
I was not addressing those with real concerns…
Yet, I think you miss the real point of the PDL and that is to help seekers find and grow in Jesus… in every one I have been involved in that was our mission statement.
In that we sought out ways to express the Gospel that people could grab and take home with them… and to also break stereotypes of what “church” was. I have been involved in the AoG and Baptist churches also and I will state there is not much difference other than style between the ideals and hearts of the people in all of those churches… they all want to reach the lost.
I also think that many people seem to throw out the social gospel in fear… yet it is there and even commanded by Jesus for us to do… to feed the poor and clothe the naked, and to give a cup of water to those who thirst… I think we need to not neglect those things as they are a integrated part of the Gospel itself. We become changed people and are conforming to His image… and what Jesus did we are told we will do even greater things. I see that is that he fed people out of compassion so should we.
Blessings,
iggy
Let’s not make this about the social gospel issue. I just think that of all the people that CRN and the watch doggies pick on, Warren is the least deserving. I think most people are more upset with him because “he” took away hymns from their church with 40 days of purpose.
I guess I am just confused as to why they would need to write so many articles on this guy! Yes, we disagree on somethings, but it it really enough to divide the body of Christ over?
Nathan,
I guess I just see some that seem to compartmentalize the Gospel… in that it loses part of its power and glory. There is no social Gospel… only the One True Gospel that compels us to Love one another…
In that if some are not “loving” I wonder if they truly have accepted the true gospel?
To me also this seem the silliest of arguments also… that Rick took away the hymns… isn’t that what the Pentecostals did before them? Isn’t that what the writer of many of the hymns Wesley did before that?
If it is a question of style… then I want the most “Jesus” style I can get… and that is to Love people in any way that God leads one to.
Blessings,
iggy
BTW Nathan,
When I read Watcher’s Lamp article, I took it the same way you did… even after he said it was not written that way… so I think it is just written very badly and in that hard to understand what he is really saying.
Blessings,
iggy
The funny thing is that many in the emerging camp love the old hymns. Just download songs from MH Seattle. Most of the songs are are in fact redone old hymns. I myself don’t like how seeker sensitive churches have taken them out. Nothing like a great old hymn, even if they put it up on powerpoint.
I do not mind thoughtful, Scriptural, and even strong posts about Rick Warren’s brand of evangelicalism. I do object to leaping upon the Murdoch issue with demeaning titles that draw attention by throwing blood in the water. Find me the pastor that hasn’t been sometimes too soft on a member and sometimes been too harsh. They don’t exist, all men (pastors) have feet of clay.
The reason that some write so many articles is because of the growing popularity of Rick Warren’s ministry. But if you are genuinely attempting to put out Scriptural warnings and confront some of the principles with Scriptural reason along with loving concern, well then you must remove the sarcasm, the hyperbole, the name calling, and the personal attacks.
If Rick Warren were to be caught in adultery some would have a barbecue. If John MacArthur would be uncovered the same people would weep. That is self righteous respecter of persons. If there is to be any impact on the direction of the gospel today there must be authoritative humility in all communications, and that combination is rare. Let’s see, Jesus. We might use Him as a model if He lets us.
By the way, I personally prefer Hillsong worship music so the removal of the hymns is a non issue. And the worship leader of Hillsong is a woman so that is not an issue with me either. Wow, the emperor has no clothes!
Iggy,
Never underestimate the ability of Christians to get upset over the silliest of issues. A guy in the church my dad is a pastor of got up in the middle of service and yelled at my dad once because the church put an ad on one of those vinyl phonebook covers that different places used to give away. The guy was associated with the phone company in some way or another, and all I remember him saying was something like, “how dare this church promote something that covers up this cover. A lot of work went into this!” He then stomped out of the building. This was during a service. So, I guess little surprises me when it comes to Christian’s immaturity. It’s sad, really.
Matt,
having played in a worship band at one of the PDL churches… we did reworked hymns every once in a while…
My thing was that some would get so caught up in “worship” and miss the fullness of what “worship” really is… and that is living the Life of Christ.
Blessings,
iggy
Phil,
I had a friend whose wife left him because he was not “spiritual” enough. She thought she was a prophet and since he had not “gift” he was not saved.
His gift was that he raised their daughter that she abandoned to seek her “calling”.
So it never amazes me to hear that some will place their calling over actually loving people.
BTW, that man loved the Lord… but out of that was really shaken that God would break up his marriage. I pointed out that God did not… his wife did.
It was a sad situation.
I have also heard of a local church here that cast out an unwed mother who was attending… you see even though she no longer was with the “father” of the child, she was “in sin” because the she was unwed and with child”. The situation was that they wanted her to repent for being pregnant… not that just how she got pregnant… and when she refused, they kicked her out… I said good… those are not the type of people she needed to be around as their love was so conditional that it was not love at all…
Blessings,
iggy
Wow – my eyes jumped first to the description of ODD in the article (since it was blockquoted), and I thought to myself – “Wow, someone’s got Ken pegged to a ‘T’”.
Rick Warren ODD (or causing ODD)?
I don’t think so.
Zowie! As Chris L. see me, I am an evil man. In that case I guess I’d better repent…um, nah.
We rejoice in your seeing and hearing!!!!
If it only be true….
But we still hold out hope, fo rwith Jesus there is always hope.
Blessings,
iggy
Chris L.
That is ok, I think sometimes I say more than I need to… sometimes I need to give room for God to move…. = )
It should help me to learn not toe respond to every snort as I cast my pearls…. LOL!
Thanks though for the info…
Blessed,
iggy
oops that last comment should have been on the Para church one…
sorry
iggy
Dear CRN.Info.com
At the risk of irritation and exhausting your patience, I was a former Roman Catholic saved by grace, baptized in an SBC church with a family of 4. A happy Deacon, Sunday School teacher with a fulltime job and bills to pay.
I was anxious to roll out the 40 Days of Purpose . Got the book in advance to prepare, with intentions of hosting a small group.
Shocked by the edification of Catholicism, not because of a negative experience in the past but rather what I read in the Scriptures. Thus, I began to research PDL.
Long story short, I found significant doctrinal conflicts with PDL. Attempted to share them with my pastor who ignored my requests to meet and discuss. Later told me I ( and my family of 4) I was no longer welcome to attend.
Lots of other degrading things happened, which provoked me to drill down to determine what would cause the man who baptized me and my family to turn in this way.
I did not create my own answer…I investigated and the evidence spoke for itself.
The result is the Watcher’s Lamp.
I truly regret if you take offence to this evidence. But don’t attack me or others who have invested a significant amount of time investigating the error of PDL and other movements.
I investigated hoping that what happened to me and my family was an isolated incident. I investigate hoping that my pastor was not acting under the influence of a program.
My investigation thus far has resulted in other conclusions.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I started hoping my opinion was wrong, and attempted to disprove it. Why? Because never could I conceive that my pastor would ignore me, lie about me, turn others against me and refuse to open the Bible with me to search the scriptures to determine if I was wrong with what I was seeing and hearing.
Protect your family…do your own homework
Jim,
Would you mind giving a little detail on what you mean by the “edification of Catholicism”? I was in a small group that went through the “40 Days of Purpose” thing, but I don’t remember that much specifically from the tapes and books, honestly. I do remember thinking there wasn’t anything revolutionary in them, but I don’t really remember anything that caused me that much alarm.
Jim,
No offense taken at all (nor irritation). When questions/discussions are in earnest (rather than purely sniping or pomposity (a la Ken) or ignorant rants speaking past everyone (a la Chris P)), we try to be courteous in return.
I have been in similar shoes to yours (and have walked with a number of friends in similar circumstances), on the receiving end of spiritual abuse from a pastor. Just some things I would note from my own story, having had time pass (which does heal some wounds) and having been blessed with a far more spiritually mature church community as a result of being faithful to the Word, rather than to men:
From reading your story, it seems that you do not separate your pastor from PDL/RW and your perceived shortcomings with PDL (from the context, it doesn’t look like your pastor was Rick Warren).
Years ago, when I read the Purpose-Driven church, I found a number of very useful things that could be used in a church I was helping to plant (which is doing very well, though we miss them, having moved about 60 miles away). As a reader of business books (as part of my profession), I understood RW’s warnings not to try and ‘boiler-plate’ what he did at Saddleback into another church in another place. I also remember thinking to myself, “there are a number of idots who will read this and try to use it as ‘paint-by-numbers’ and will fail spectacularly – because their focus will be on numbers, like a ‘get rich quick’ scheme.” Sure enough, there have been (and it sounds like your pastor may have been one of them).
I did think that he stretched scripture with some of the points he made in PDC (particularly in places that didn’t really need prooftexted justification), but in all I found parts of it to help stimulate ways of separating “what is traditional” from “what is biblical”. In the church plant, I found some of the things from PDC helping the church staff make the best use of their time while organizing the members of the church in a way that better stewarded their talents and abilities. [None of this changed the content of our teaching or messages, which topically ranged from apologetics to application, not a 'watered-down gospel'.]
For me the biggest problem with the PDC is illustrated in this ‘demotivational’ poster – The only consistent feature in all of your dissatisfying relationships is you. How so? I believe that a church with spiritually healthy leadership and a core group of spiritually mature believers will continue to grow in maturity, whether or not they use any of the thought processes from PDC. I do believe, though, that some of the ideas triggered from RW’s experience, will result in growtn in both numbers and maturity of such a church body. Why? Because they will remember that the Word is the Word, no matter what ‘tradition’ is followed, and that it is the Word (not man-made methodologies) that waters and grows the Kingdom.
Conversely, I believe that a church with inept/ineffective leadership and/or an immature core group of believers will remain inept/ineffective – no matter what methodology they use. Why? Because they never fully trusted God (as a body) or His Word in the first place. Trying to use PDC or any other methodology will fail – possibly spectacularly – without the underpinnings required by God and voiced by Paul to Timothy, Titus and others.
[Interestingly, this is where the emergent/emerging church fits, as well. Each individual EC church has tended to come from a denominational (or non-denominational) tradition and/or a specific existing church, bringing with it the key criteria for "success" or "failure" (in God's eyes). Thus, the EC churches who hold the Word in high esteem are completely different than those who hold the Word in low/no esteem are reflections of their spiritual roots. This is why blanket condemnation of the ECM is destructive to the body of Christ - it lacks discernment and compounds - rather than confronts - error. But I digress...]
In short, on this point, it sounds like the failings of your church – and the abuse from your pastor – are the failings of that pastor and that church (and possibly you) or a combination of the three, not the easy road of blaming a “program” they were using at the time.
You wrote:
Pastors are men, too, and I’ve seen this behavior at a ‘traditionalist’ church and at one with a PDL program in progress. The failing is often on the part of both parties: Many pastors (like Mr. Silva) tend to give themselves too much authority or a cloak of such, hiding personal insecurity, and questioning them when/where they don’t want to be questioned is tantamount to questioning Jesus (again, like Ken). Many parishoners are not easily able to understand the difference between gnats and camels when dividing the Word – and expect far too much, in terms of action, from their leaders. Combined, these two are deadly to individual lives and churches. A HUGE number of arguments I’ve listened to regarding PDC/PDL would fall into the category of ‘gnats’, but once a position was staked out without 100% aquiescence of one of the parties, the gnat looked like a VW Beetle.
Having been through the PDL curricula, I found it to be very basic, unchallenging and uninspiring. However, I did see it strike a chord with a number of immature believers, and it led to conversations and relationships that have been part of a journey mature belief.
In the terms of Paul, I found ‘PDL’ to be milk that, without a followup into meat, would result in lots and lots of immature Christians. With this understanding, I have seen a ‘40 days’ program at three churches. Two of the three included it as ‘milk’ during a time of high-visitor periods of the year (fall or spring) and followed it up with meat – in small groups, Sunday School classes and from the pulpit. One of the three stuck it in as a panacea to stimulate growth and ‘unity’. Guess which of the three churches grew (short- and long-term) in maturity and numbers? Guess which one failed spectacularly, and still sits stagnating as a ‘country club’ church?
I don’t know that any of us are dyed-in-the-wool ‘defenders’ of all that is PDL. What we are, though, is for doing the work of God – which is in growing the kingdom, in maturity and numbers, not in tearing it apart to ease our own pain, guilt or insecurities.
“Having been through the PDL curricula, I found it to be very basic, unchallenging and uninspiring.”
And when those things come to a head you may find it is sufficiently wanting as to be ineffectual. That, Chris, is the real danger. Having read the book, heard the discussions, and seen the results I am forced to clearly come to the conclusion that the PDL formula is dangerously shallow, regardless if immature believers like and on some level benefit from it.
In fact, immature believers will stay immature and unbelievers may well stay unbelievers through the PDL strategy.
Whew Jim, you illicited anther book from Chris L. You needs to understand though that while he says I take too much authority, he judges himself because when anyone disagrees with him they are wrong apparently because of his superior knowledge of new evangelical intepretations of Scripture.
And phil, re. : edification of Catholicism. Warren accepts the apostate Church of Rome as a Christian denomination:
http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/40DayCampaigns/PurposeDrivenChurches/PDCHome.htm
I gotta tell ya that when “America’s Pastor” and PDL Pope Rick Warren himself gives you his blessing that the Reformation is now over, why that’s just about as edified as you get. Man alive! I pray this helps ease your concerns…
Henry,
I’ve found that the reason immature believers remain immature believers is for the most part because they want to. Pastors can spur people on to grow, but the motivation needs to come from within. Now, I would agree that PDL isn’t going to provide depth to people who are seeking it, but I also feel that some are using it as a scapegoat to some extent.
It’s like, “I’m not growing because my church is using PDL”. Well if that’s the case, quit whining and move on. Start learning on your own. There are more resources easily available to us now than ever. The fact is that I have not seen someone who is truly passionate about being a disciple of Christ hampered by church programs for the most part.
I’m sorry for preaching – I just get fired up about when peoplw start talking about maturit in the church. I feel some Christians want the to be more like a nursery. Although, I generally don’t like militaristic analogies, I think maybe the analogy of a boot camp may be a little better. We need to be equipping people to go out, but people have to have a desire to be equipped.
Jim,
I do appreciate that you have done research and also that you seem to be willing to actually engage in discussion instead of making mocking and snide remarks.
If i have offended you I apologize right off as I personally have not seen much of this from those associated with Ken…
So, off of that, the problem for me with PDL was not scriptural as much as just plain boring… I do acknowledge that i would notice that at times seeker/purpose driven churches seem to use proof text to make their points and often the text has nothing to do with the point… though the point valid… yet I have seen this in about all churches I have attended… most probably I am also guilty of it myself in the past.
Yet, as far as your accusations I do not recall anything that edified Catholicism so i too would like you to elaborate on that a bit.
I do see that there is a hope and a desire that denominational walls will come down. In that many of us may not agree with the obvious major errors of the RCC, such and Mary worship… yet one must admit that the RCC does not deny Jesus for Who He is.
I know many Catholics that have a deep understanding of the faith… and of course I know know many more that just have no clue. Yet, as a whole I view that the Catholics are as “Christian” as the Baptists… as I see many errors in the teaching of baptists also… yet I still call them brothers.
What I am trying to get at is that we do have unity in Christ and that is where our focus should be. I heard someone say that everyone will get to heaven with bad doctrine… but no one will get to heaven without Jesus Christ. I personally think that the Grace and Love of God cover a multitude of sins… in that we must remember first and foremost it is by Grace through faith and not of works… to say having perfect doctrine saves us, then is saying we are saved by our own understandings of those doctrines… that negates Grace and returns us to works.
If we trust i Christ alone, and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us… and join together in loving unity as Jesus prayed, then I think the doctrines that are held in common will be the strongest and most important… the ones we disagree on will be more the non essentials… believe me, I have been condemned by Baptists for even THINKING about studying the mid trib rapture… I could not even be saved if I did not believe the pre trib rapture… and that is a non essential!
In that I see that though I understand your view, I think that the focus on the “bad” in the RCC has clouded your view a bit… I went through something similar when I left the Assembly of God… I found grace and could not see how anyone who taught they could lose their salvation could be saved… even though I once taught that myself… yet, I found that I must give the same Grace and Mercy given to me to all people… yep even Ken…. = ) even if I think that their view is totally wrong.
So, I am asking to consider if your view is tainted my bitterness of being under bad teaching, or is it guided by Grace through the Holy Spirit.
Now, I do not think that Rick meant that “everyone” that speaks out against him is “ODD”. In fact I have written articles myself on the concerns of PDL, and do not see that i am included in his rebuttal… yet I do see that some fit the bill… in fact I see that some are pegged to the wall with Rick’s assessment of them… it may not be you and me, but it is definitely a good few you hang with… so in that I caution you t beware.
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy – it isn’t the worship of Mary or the saints or even transubstantiation that makes the RCC a false religion. It is because they teach salvation by works and that is very serious. The works they teach are salvation and good works in life. In fact, the very nature of pergutory is to make someone pay for their sins because the RCC teaches not all sins are under the blood.
There are many mor teachings that are absurd, but the fact that they deny salvation by grace through faith should suffice. And you cannot make a judgment based upon Catholic people you know because if they are truly born again it was in spite of the RCC teachings certainly not because of them.
Over the centuries the RCC has been the most viscious sect of Christianity ever assembled, and their homage to the infallibility of the Pope is blasphemy. Millions of Jews and gentiles alike have been slain by the dictates of Rome. Luther’s anti-semetism was carried over from the hateful teachings of Rome.
It is true that the Spirit has reached some but at the same time that has led to the ecumenical movement and many are now embracing the RCC as a legitimate Christian Church. It is not.
I meant – the works they teach are baptism and good works in life.
Chris and Iggy,
I thought your comments were well written. I think that too many people who attack the PD model are reacting more to an experience they had with it, rather than the content. You are right, the content is not very deep and nothing in it should be considered blasphemous or unhealthy. And we may differ on this Rick, but I think that seekers and young believers sometimes need a shallow place to start to move them into deeper waters. I think the PDL is a actually a descent place for them to start. The end goal of the program is to get people into serving others. In my opinion, people are discipled when serving others with others.
Ken,
You wrote:
Funniest thing, Ken – so did your “teacher”, Walter Martin…
From wikipedia:
“Martin was a figure of controversy who aroused great loyalty among his colleagues, and deep animosity from many of his detractors. He was criticised by some fundamentalist Protestants for his affiliations with Pentecostals and Charismatics (even though he was a Baptist), and for his refusal to classify the Roman Catholic church as a “cult”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin
How come we have to do all of Ken’s research for him?
Rick,
Actually in the 1980’s the Catholic church reconsidered Luther’s position and decided he was not a heretic…
The Catholics I know understand salvation by Grace through Faith…
I agree that many do not… yet even “penance” has been a bit redefined over the years…
though I do not think “our” works worth anything, I do see we are to do the “works” of God. In that I have not problem with RCC… in fact i think many miss that that is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we are to keep teaching…
That was what Jesus meant by setting the captives free as He read Isaiah.
Also, if you read Luther and Calvin they also taught infant baptism and though may have only slightly changed the idea from the RCC they really taught much the same thing…
Calvin taught infant baptism for regeneration… and that seems about the same idea to me and just as wrong.
Blessings,
iggy
Chris L.,
“Funniest thing, Ken – so did your “teacherâ€, Walter Martin… ”
Don’t you get tired of speaking about things you know nothing of? You might want to go to CRN for the truth…
Iggy – have you read Vatican II ? That will remove any doubt.
Ken-
Walter Martin did not consider RC a cult, true or false?
Ken,
You wrote:
Apparently, you missed (or ignored) the comment immediately after mine. To repeat, from the wiki entry on Walter Martin:
You also wrote:
I also might want to go to my corner hardware store to buy an aircraft carrier, but my odds of finding one there are about the same as finding the truth at CRN…
Matt,
Did you bother to read what I placed on CRN? There’s also a longer version over at Apprising. Martin was criticized by some who misunderstand the issue because he didn’t label the apostate Church of Rome as a cult. In this Dr. Martin was absolutely correct. Rather it is, as Dr. John MacArthur has said, “another religion entirely.”
Martin and MacArthur correctly label the Roman Catholic Church as an apostate form of Christianity, thus another religion and not merely a cult of Christianity. The RCC can never be considered as just another denomination until it abolishes the papacy and publicly repents of her many, many sins against the Body of Christ.
And that’s about as likely as Rob Bell, Chris L. and me having a cookout together this Memorial Day.
Chris L.,
I thought you wonderful Christians admit when you’re wrong. Martin considered the RCC apostate, as do I. Neither of us label it a cult so, as so often happens, your point it…well, pointless. Why don’t you try and stay on point…
Ken,
You and Rob are invited – we’re eating at 1:00 EST. We’re celebrating some birthdays too, that weekend, just so you aren’t surprised…
I actually only live 2 hours south of Ken. He can come down and hang out with 100 of my Rob Bell lovin, apostate friends in Mass.
A critic of Martin’s position: “The Christian Research Institute, (CRI), founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin, is regarded by many as the foremost authority on cults and the occult. They also see themselves as experts on what constitutes Biblical theology. CRI has produced position papers on Roman Catholicism, addressing some of the doctrines with which they are in disagreement. They have stopped short, however, of acknowledging Roman Catholicism as a cult. They are, in fact, adamant in their defense of Roman Catholicism as an orthodox Christian religion. In this regard, they have come against others for their insistence that Roman Catholicism meets the criteria of a cult.“
Link
Chris L.,
You might refer to why I explained above that the RCC is NOT a cult, if you haven’t. It looks to me that these people are speaking of CRI itself, and Walter Martin was NOT a Pentecostal.
Here is Walter Martin speaking for himself on Roman Catholicism:
The [Roman Catholic] Church has adapted to the necessity of survival, as she always has. But she has never changed [her] positions. Now; as Christians, what ought our attitude to be [concerning Roman Catholicism]? It ought to be an attitude of gratitude; and attitude of joy, because God has delivered us from this system into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. We are not descendants of this papacy, nor do we wish to be… We [who are Christian] reject a corrupt church; a backslidden church; an apostate church…
Peter is not the first pope, nor does [this office even exist, and the Pope of Rome does not] have the power to legislate for Christians. When [Pope John Paul II] tells you that he thanks the Virgin Mary for sparing his life when he was [almost] assassinated. And yet he is the Vicar of Christ by profession, then think it is time to realize that [Romanism]…is the kind of leadership we do not wish to follow, and we [need] to discourage others from following [the Roman Catholic Church].
(Roman Catholicism – Part 2 of 3, side 1, cassette #4011, Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet)
Now you have the facts, and what you do with them is entirely between you and God as it should be.
Ken,
The point is, though, that despite his disagreements with Catholic teaching (which I would agree with Dr. Martin, as well), he never said that Catholics were not Christian or that they were a cult. I don’t disagree with anything he’s written here, and I would discourage anyone from joining the RCC (as I would the CRBC, though for similar but different reasons). I would hesistate, though, as did Dr. Martin, to say that Catholics are unsaved, un-Christian and hell-bound…
THAT is the point we’ve been making and you’ve completely ignored…
What if we set aside the classification issue for a moment (i.e. cult, denomination) and look at this through the eyes of evangelism or how you would diagnose a person’s spiritual condition. If you have a friend that is involved in a Baptist denomination there is a 95% chance he is a genuine Christian. If your friend is a Roman Catholic there is a 40% chance he is a genuine Christian. Eastern Orthodox 10%. Unity Church 3%. Mormon 1%. I am making these numbers up but they are close to my personal experiences in evangelism.
My point is that regardless of classification, some systems make it more difficult for a person to come to genuine faith and spiritual maturity because of poor or improper doctrine. As a guy who went to an assemblies of God college and a fundamental seminary, my experiences are that both of these “systems,†for lack of a better term, produce a very high turnout of genuine believers.
So, I would suggest that the Roman Catholic church is a Christian church with a lot of unsaved people.
Then you both disagree with the Reformers because when they, and Martin, use the word apostate for the RCC they mean IT is no longer a Christian Church. Whether there are “saved” people within it is a red herring. The point is that the Protestant Reformation is about the apostate Church of Rome no longer being considered a Christian church.
All of the rabbit trails don’t change the fact that the RCC had not changed one iota since the Council or Trent when she anathematized the Gospel: Salvation is by God’s grace alone; through faith alone, in Christ alone. I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand that but this issue is with the RCC magisterium and not about what individual Roman Catholics may or may not believe.
“If you have a friend that is involved in a Baptist denomination there is a 95% chance he is a genuine Christian.”
Darren, you have a higher opinion of Baptists than I do. Just kidding, I just found that really funny.
The only difference between a Baptist and a Methodist (or insert other mainliner here) is that the Methodist will look at you in the liquor store.
The Roman Catholic Church is a cult, apsotate, false, and any other synonym you wish, why argue. As for Dr. Martin, he was a scholarly man of God so why micromanage his words?
I saw him debate a catholic theologian on television and he made his opinion quite obvious. I’m not sure the motivation behind discrediting him. He wasn’t perfect either but was greatly used of God.
I am not suggesting there is a vast gray area here but we may have different definitions for our labels. Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates f*** people) might call themselves a Christian church, but I see them as a cult.
I am defining Christian Church as an entity that holds firm to New Testament teachings and I realize that is very broad. So I see the Roman Catholic church as a Christian Church with serious doctrinal flaws, the most important one being wrong on salvation by faith alone.
No church that teaches salvation by anything but grace through faith is actually Christian. The RCC isn’t even close and we cannot lend them any credibility purely upon the fact that in these last days the mercy of God has reached some of them. Any Catholic that gets born again did so in spite of RCC teaching certainly not because of it.
If the amount of genuine believers is questionable in evangelical churches that at least preach the gsopel, what hope is there for people who believe their baptism, or their confessional, or their mass, or even the works of their own hands saves them? Come on, guys, be real. We do the catholic people a major disservice by implying that the RCC is just another genuine Christian denomination.
Let’s all go apologize to the tens of thousands of martyrs and the millions of Jews that were slaughtered at the hands of this wonderful “Christian” church. Read Vatican II and then tell me they are even close.
And when you meet a catholic who seems saved and even espouses grace through faith that in no way changes the abject heresy of the RCC. Let us be harmless as doves but WISE AS SERPENTS!
I do not get it Darren, how can you say they are Christian but wrong on salvation? Well then so are Mormons or Jehovah’s Witness. Being correct on salvation would have to be the defining characteristic of a “Christian” church would it not?? Without that “Christ has profited you NOTHING”.
Rick,
I do not wholly disagree with you and understand why my statements are confusing. I will admit that I do not have it down with a certainty.
I have a friend who is a member of the Church of Christ denomination. He would suggest that if you believe in Christ for salvation and then die a few minutes later without being baptized, you will not be saved. Would you say that the Church of Christ is “wrong on salvation” but still a Christian Church.
I am on this thread for the dialogue and am open to correction. Please help. I have no problem calling a cult, a cult or and apostate, an apostate. I just want to be confident when I do it.
Any church that is wrong on salvation is not a Christian church. It does not matter if they are accepted like Church of Christ, if they teach salvation by works they are not Christian. They might have Christians in them but they themselves are not Christian.
Paul said in Galatians that if a Jew believes on Jesus as the Savior but teaches that you must still obey the law you have fallen from grace and Christ has profited you nothing. That is exactly like saying if you believe that Jesus is the Savior but teach you must be baptized to be saved you are not a Christian church. Only God can say whether you yourself are a believer, but your church is not a Christian church.
If a church or denomination teaches anything but faith in Christ alone saves you, they are a false cult. Remember, a demon inside a woman (Acts 16) shouted out that Paul was the servant of God who showed the correct way of salvation – and that was a demon talking. Was that demon Christian because he was speaking the truth? How much more should churches who marginalize the cross with the works of man be called false, not Christian?
Rick,
I am really not trying to exasperate you…..but….if a church was right on salvation but denied things like baptism in obedience, the need to take communion, all Scripture is useful, etc. what would you call them? With several thousand denominations out there, it can get pretty difficult.
I notice that some people will use “The Historic Orthodox Christian Faith” and I take that to mean a person or group that would be in line with the reformers. The RCC certainly does not fall under this label. I would never belong to that church and anyone that said they belong to the RCC would cause me to think that is unlikely they are saved.
If a denomination is correct on salvation but believe that baptism is not New Testament (they are out there) they are a Christian denomination. Salvation is Jesus who is the head of the church so if a denomination corrupts His Saviorhood by adding works they are not a Christian church.
You have some goofy churches out there whose practice and non-salvidic beliefs are even a little wierd, but those side issues make them a goofy wing of the Christian church. The true way of salvation is essential for being a true Christian church.
Darren, I realize that the RCC has been a source of controversy but it is simple. They teach a man made way of salvation so do you think the Lord Jesus approves them as “Christian”. And of course they also believe that the mass helps you get “more saved” and many other non biblical teachings.
I am not sure but a coming Pope may even be the anti-christ. How can that be a possibility within a true Christian church? It cannot.
Rick,
this is from an RCC website… here is the link
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
“The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).
It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner’s heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man’s free will.
Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God’s justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ’s sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.
This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God’s grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.
Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold
that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural;
that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace;
that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin;
that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so;
that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities;
that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God’s judgment-seat.
Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance,
the precise nature of initial grace,
the manner in which grace and free will work together,
the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification,
the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace.
But these questions are treated in other articles dealing ex professo with the respective subjects. The same is true of final perseverance without which personal salvation from sin is not permanently secured.
What has been said applies to the salvation of adults; children and those permanently deprived of their use of reason are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism. ”
Now this sounds a lot like Calvin’s institute to me… only the thing that Calvin hated was the Hierarchical structure which he replaced with Sola Scriptura
This also has a bit of the Arninian thought running through it… so I think that the official stance is clear on Grace through Faith…
Now I may not agree with some things that are stated above, but I do see that they stand Salvation by Grace that is not merited… meaning that does not come by works…
I think a lot has changed over the years… like I said, they even officially forgave Luther in the 1980s!
Blessings,
iggy
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but while Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynn were enemies, Flynn described him also as his friend. While Flynn had obvious differences, Falwell would hang out with him when he was in the area. Sounds like the Warren/Murdoch relationship.
Two podcasts who have emerging tendencies, Relevant and Catalyst, both paid tribute to Falwell in their most recent podcasts. Why can’t CRN/Sliced have this kind of attitude?
“Sounds like the Warren/Murdoch relationship.”
Then you need to listen better. Falwell never claimed to be Flynn’s pastor (apples). However, befriending him was proper Christian conduct (oranges).
Ken,
It is no longer “apples and oranges”, as RW has given more definition to the off-the-cuff statement about being Murdoch’s “pastor”. Of course, that detracts from the sensationalist bashing angle you so love, so I guess you’ll just have to continue to ignore it…
Objectivity: If Silva claimed to be someone famous’s pastor and then sort of “retracted” it, would any of you have ever looked at it the way you are trying to view Warren’s statement: that he was simply “joking,” that it was “off the cuff” etc?
No, Silva wouldn’t be given any benefit of the doubt. His making such a claim would be seen as:
1)yet another sign of his arrogance.
2)evidence that he wants to build himself up with his famous connections but doesn’t want to take any responsibility to actually be a “pastor.”
3)that he doesn’t speak the truth.
Numerous jokes about “God told him that he was so-and-so’s pastor, but then revoked it” would be told.
Your remarks would all be written as “factual evidence” and you would not listen to claims that you were being sensationalist.
Where’s the objectivity?
Amy,
Ken would actually have to retract something for your hypothetical to happen… That in itself would be just short of a miracle…
Amy,
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Ken said “I am John Doe’s pastor” and then retracted it that we would respect the retraction. The only time it would be brought up would be if he didn’t extend the same grace to another pastor (kind of like the unforgiving servant Jesus told a story about)…
I am also sure that, were one of the writers here to throw it back in his face, the others would reprimand that person – here on the boards – because that is exactly the type of behavior we would WANT Ken to finally show – it’s his ‘infallibility’ that has become the cornerstone of his charicature.
Ken,
Do you stll consider that many of those on the internet are “your congrgation” and you are their pastor?
Be blessed,
iggy
“RW has given more definition to the off-the-cuff statement.” That’s the very issue. No, Rick has nothing, so he has not said it was an “off the cuff statement.” His church did not say Rick wasn’t Murdoch’s pastor (apples). What they said was Murdoch is not a member if Saddleback (oranges).
“it’s his ‘infallibility’ that has become the cornerstone of his charicature”
Precisely why it is a caricature; I’ve never claimed that in the first place…
Caricatures occur, because they are a reflection of a given reality. We’ve given ample opportunities of clear cases where you have misquoted, misrepresented or outright lied about a position from Rob Bell or others, and you’ve chosen to change the subject or ignore the evidence. When confronted with obvious error, your reaction gives evidence to a behavior which infers an attitude of infallibility (stated or not).
Ken,
First off your view of “pastor” is unbiblical… it is a gift not a position. We pastor as we guide and protect… in that sense Rick can be doing his pastoral calling yet not be in direct authority as you define “pastor” being. (Apples)
When you state that Rick is Murdoch’s pastor, it is in the sense that RW has “authority” as in position which implies that Murdoch has placed “himself” under that authority. In that a “pastor” can only have authority over one if they submit to the gift of the “pastor” (oranges)
… Outside of that we as pastors are to uplift, edify and build up those around us. Again, God gave the church the “gift of pastor, teachers, and such…
So the issue is not whether RW is Murdoch’s ‘pastor” but if Murdoch has placed himself under RW’s authority… again you are attacking the wrong person…
If someone did not go to your “church” yet claimed you as their pastor, would you be held accountable if they stole a car? Or even better, if you were witnessing to this person and were practicing your “gift” and they habitually beat their wife, and one night she died because of it, would you then be guilty of her death? Should you then be taken and put into prison?
It seems that you miss this simple point over and over… Murdoch is the one that is “sinning”, RW can claim authority over whatever, but if that person has not submitted to him, then RW is not their pastor… so if RW stated privately that Murdoch needed to stop promoting porno, and Murdoch did not change this… it is not RW’s fault… I mean you have no idea if the donation was given before or after such a conversation took place… nor do you know the nature of the donation given… it could have been on a political basis as RW went to North Korea and Murdoch was hoping that it would open the doors for his business to get in and had nothing to do with spiritual things…
You are just way out of line in your style and even in your accusation against RW as you do not have ALL the facts.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Amy-
If Falwell said he was Flint’s pastor, do you think Silva would crucify him? We know that he wouldn’t.
After all, Mohler got a free pass when he said that homosexuality may be genetic. Mohler also got a free pass when he didn’t respond to the TD Jakes controversy.
I believe Warren should correct and minster to Mudoch privately and if he didn’t Warren should be corrected privately. And if after a season Murdoch continued to sell pornography then Warren should be given a warning about it going public.
Maybe Ken was a little aggressive, but if left to the seeker/emergent crowd Warren would never have been warned at all. Pray for Murdoch.
Rick,
Here is the catch though… how do you know RW did not already correct Murdoch… and even if he did as I stated before, even if RW claims to be his pastor, he is not if Murdoch does not submit to his “pastoring”…
So why then drag RW through the fire?
And Ken is not being “a little aggressive” he was more than aggresive… i mean down right abusive to RW before the story even broke… So Ken needs a little rebukin’ himself…
The last sentence is just a cheap shot… it is like saying that we must also hold the Pope accountable… or Frank Page…
If we are not of that church then why would we need to address THEIR inside disciplinary actions… would you want me to come over to your church and start addressing so and so in public if I knew they had or had some slight connection to them “sinning”?
We do have some disciplinary actions taking place in the ec… Mark Driscoll was recently rebuked rather publicly for his “abusive” words and teachings about women… i felt those rebuking were out of line as they went after Mark, but you teach the same thing… yet you are not in the ec and Mark is… soooo should I give those people your number and address so they can rebuke you over a difference of the position of women in the church?
So, again, Rick my friend, a cheap shot… i can say many things about and against the Arminian view… but i would rather work on our relationship as your friend and earn a place to be heard instead of just attacking you with the Bible and calling you something I would regret later…
Blessings,
iggy