True – John D, who writes with us from time to time also attends Saddleback…

In both cases, though, who better to judge the veracity of words about their pastor (by people who have never talked to him) than the folks who know him week-to-week?

Rick,

When you look up “Guilt-by-Association” in the dictionary, it includes a link to Lighthouse Trails…

Yes, but LTR can’t/won’t notice the difference between the two – even when explicitly communicated to them by the person in question.

Example:

LTRP #2:”[Warren] wrote the foreword (along with Brian McLaren) for Dan Kimball’s The Emerging Church.”

RESPONSE:Kimball’s book was a collaborative volume with several different contributors—a key point that Oakland ignores. It is key because in a compilation book such as The Emerging Church, the material taken from various individuals is usually put together by the publisher, effectively keeping each author fairly ignorant about what is going on at the publishing house. It is common under such circumstances for each author to not see what the other authors involved have written. A person (for example, Rick Warren), is contracted to do a certain piece (like a chapter, commentary, side-bar, or foreword)—and that’s it. Then, a year or so later, suddenly, there is the book. Most of it, if not all of it, is new to each individual author (this, of course, is not the case in a book written by a single person).

And I say this as someone who has been a contributing author to four major compilation works (The Kingdom of the Cults [1997 edition, ed. Hank Hanegraaff], Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, Baker’s Encyclopedia of Cults and World Religions [not-yet-published], and Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies). In all four instances, I never saw anything that the other authors had written. In fact, with regard to Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies, four chapters before my chapter on Mormonism and Racism, there is a chapter by ex-Christian pastor Dan Barker, who debunks the resurrection of Jesus and basically says it is a lie! I had no idea that this Barker individual was going to be included in the book, let alone what he was going to say about the resurrection. Does this mean that I now deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and I am an atheist? Hardly.

This seems to be what happened with Warren in connection to Kimball’s book The Emerging Church. Warren, in fact, has publicly explained this—and he did it in a letter addressed to none other than Lighthouse Trails: “[T]he more well known a person becomes, the harder it is to stay current with everyone who is using your name for their purposes. For instance, Zondervan publishers asked me to write a commentary on an ‘Emerging Church’ book, although I am definitely not a part of that group” (Rick Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005).

Furthermore, it must be noted that Warren’s foreword in The Emerging Church is in support of the book as being an important contribution to the study of the Emerging Church. It is not necessarily an endorsement of either: a) the Emerging Church as a whole; or b) all aspects of the Emerging Church. In other words, although Warren may think that the Emerging Church is an important thing to be discussed, dealt with, and looked at (via the very book he contributed to), he may not agree with everything being taught in the book or in certain sectors of the Emerging Church. This is obvious from his interview with me (see above excerpt from my interview with Warren).

To make matters worse, Rick Warren himself wrote to Lighthouse Trails, seeking to explain the issues surrounding the book and Brian McLaren’s involvement, saying:

“[W]hen the book came out—it had my name paired with Brian McLaren’s on the cover! If I had known that Mr. McLaren [a more radical leader in the Emerging Church] was asked to be a commentator too, I would have declined, because I have some major disagreements with his views of the so-called ‘emerging’ movement’” (Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005).

The Dombrowskis have utterly dismissed Warren’s attempts to explain exactly what he believes, preferring instead to continue painting him as a supporter of the entire Emergent Church and someone who is “involved” with Brian McLaren.

Like me, they can reject the “explanation” as unconvincing. Words mean something (Hillary) and when you write/speak them youcannot just massage them later to remove the clear meaning.

ME: You said “X”, and you quoted “Y”. Therefore you’re a heretic! (Cue the torches, stake and bonfire)

YOU: That’s not entirely correct, as you’ve taken it out of context. Additionally, just because I quoted “Y” doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything he says. If you view what I actually wrote in context and what I’ve consistently said since then, you can see what I meant was “Z”.

ME: Sorry, your explanation is unconvincing. I’m gonna keep telling people you believe “X” and are in league with “Y”.

YOU: But I’m not!

ME: I personally reserve the right to interpret your words as I see fit. You believe “X” and are in league with “Y”.

YOU: But that’s false.

ME: Sorry – I’ll let God sort that out someday. Heretic.

Chris P – you completely missed the point – LHT was connecting RW to McLaren (not Kimball) and the entirety of the ECM. He did not know that McLaren was also writing an intro as well, and was being co-billed as an “endorser”…

I’d say your comment is a case-in-point for leaving “discernment” to the professional journalists…

Keith,

Arbanes’ “assessments of other ministries” extends only so far as those “ministries” (using the term VERY loosely) make a cottage industry of slandering his pastor. Johnson, on the other hand, make everyone else’s business his own, whether they even know who Johnnie Mac is or could care less…

(for some reason, your response was in the spam filter, from which I rescued it)

I’m sorry, Keith and Rick, but the comparison between Johnson and Arbanes doesn’t wash –

It’s like going back to 1991 and suggesting that Saddam and the ruling family in Kuwait were essentially the same. One party went looking for a fight in a spirit of pride and domination – the other was just trying to protect itself…. (Granted, we could also look toward 1939 Germany and Poland, but I don’t want to Godwin the thread, even though the comparison is just as apt…)

the defending of MacArthur by Johnson

Perhaps I read TeamPyro incorrectly, then, but I see very little of it aimed at “defending” MacArthur, but rather an attack on most everyone who’s not MacArthur (or his direct ancestors – Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther)