Skip to comments.Rick Warren critics over OBAMA told to leave the church...
Posted on 12/14/2006 11:48:10 AM PST by jodiluvshoes
click here to read article
This is what we've been trying to tell you, lo, these many months.
Or, they have met privately, he won't do anything, and they go public, because that's what Matt 18 says to do.
I set the standard of proof against a bro--especially a bro who has done so much in behalf of The Kingdom--rather high.
And when it seems largely to come from sour grapes because of differences over doctrine which The Bible has some ambiguity over . . . that doesn't cut it; for me.
On the other hand, I have a fiercely strong bias in behalf of leaders listening to the lowest person in their ranks. Whenever they are not willing to do that, their pride is in the way and that's a route to all manner of evil.
Moses listened to anyone as long as he could. Shoot--God was ready to meet with anyone at the tent of meeting but the people were afraid.
As to RW, I still mostly leave him to God. I'm not willing to throw rocks over doctrinal differences The Bible is not precise over nor over gossip.
That church is not devoted to Christ as much as it is devoted to Rich Warren.
In my near 60 years, I've seen Mat 18 applied Biblically maybe 2-3 times, if that.
Carping and whining and throwing rocks from a safe distance in public is not Mat 18 confronting and not Mat 18 dialogue.
I admit that many leaders are loathe to cooperate with Mat 18. God will deal with them.
Rick Joyner rightly says, I think, that without a cloak of humility in these last days, the enemy will pick the individual off far earlier than was fitting.
Been down that road.
You are better off for having left.
A good article here:
Most people don't even realize it's happening, it's become such a natural part of our society. You learn nothing but how to manipulate via the delphi process too.
Facilitators of Diaprax always minimize the importance of scriptural knowledge (facts) and didactic teaching (lectures) in order to successfully seduce their subjects into group participation with un-offensive human interaction, superficial edutainment, non-threatening worshiptainment and dialectic team-building techniques. Diaprax doesnt teach anyone anything except how to THINK, FEEL and EXPERIENCE what everyone else is thinking, feeling and experiencing. The only thing learned by Diaprax is the process itself. What Diaprax is REALLY all about is unlearning your core valuesletting go of anything that keeps you from moving toward the new paradigm of global harmony. Its about turning ones ears from the Ancient of Days to the latest noise on the street for spiritual guidance and direction.
Here's another good article:
Is that a royal or a judicial "they"?
Of course you wouldn't see his partiality, because you share his anti-Catholicism bias.
A judge complaining that there isn't enough Catholic-smearing on a forum doesn't sound like a very impartial judge to me.
I feel sorry for any Catholics who passed through his courtroom.
Thought that was Episcopalians.
I was referring to the post I was responding to. You could be right if you were referring to other data. But I wasn't in his court room. Were you?
I don't believe I have an anti-Roman believer bias.
I have some strong biases against some Romanist doctrines and practices.
I didn't realize so many folks hereon functioned as RW's psychologist, confessor, counselor, brain/heart scanners.
Actually, that was the chapter about "Music" in Warren's 1992 book, "The Purpose Driven Church". To be fair, he didn't suggest throwing them out, just giving them a "Take it or leave it" attitude, forcing them to leave. Otherwise, you are spot on with your assessment.
"Many ministers think they will be successful if they are little Stalins because of people like Warren and Schuller."
The tell-tale signs is when you don't even know who is on the Board. Then you may find out that THERE IS NO BOARD! They won't give you a copy of the bylaws. They want full control, no answering to anyone, not even God.
By using a fake, concocted terminology ("Roman believer", "Romanist") you deliberately insult us personally.
Actually, Rick Warren "borrowed" many of his charts and psychological bunk from Carl Jung, a protoge' of Sigmund Freud. While Warren defenders viciously deny it, there are charts in Carl Jung's writings that are identical to those used by Rick Warren, pointing toward what some people consider actual outright plagiarism.
That's unchristian and sick -- sounds more like something a cult would do ... what's the matter with these people?
No. Not so. Not true.
I merely refuse to let you exclusively, monopolistically OWN the generic term "catholilc."
I strongly believe that all who have accepted Christ as their Personal Savior and who seek to walk in His Spirit as well as they can manage with His help
. . . all such belong to The Universal Catholic Church made up of all believers of all denominations and probably plenty who've never darkened a denominational door.
It's a matter of doctrine, to me, not personal insult.
If I were to be insulting deliberately, you would definitely know it.
"Romanist" is merely a term that works for me and others given my doctrinal perspective--which I must be true to or take another, different one! LOL.
BTW, I consider it a lie to label my terms "fake" etc. They were carefully arrived at in an effort to find a term true to my doctrine which communicated and was not inherently insulting.
I suppose we could talk about Mary's fake after-Christ virginity but that would probably best be on another forum.
Jung was not a 100% clueless demonized satanic idiot. Some of his metaphors were useful.
The fact that Warren used his charts in his book without proper attribution speaks volumes.
I don't know. Sloppy at least. I'd have certainly cited. It's the Christian thing to do.
I suspect, however, that a lot of Jung's stuff is well out of copyright.
How about this link, right from Warren's own Pastors.com site:
It's more important to look at what he concretely does.
What he does seems to be relatively simple: marketing an idea which he calls "Purpose" or, more precisely, "the 5 purposes" which he says are delineated in Scripture.
There is the best-selling book, but there is also a best-selling training program that trains local pastors to become evangelists of the "Purpose" suite of goods and services.
A pastor who is well-trained in "Purpose" will be an effective salesman for "Purpose" to his congregation.
The congregation, properly instructed in "Purpose" will then remit congregation resources to Warren's "Purpose"-related charities.
It's simple, practical and self-funding once it is up and running.
All marketers like positive advertising, and deplore negative advertising.
One of the most effective forms of advertising is word of mouth advertising.
If someone who has not agreed with the "Purpose" training leaves their congregation and heads to a congregation that has not received "purpose" training, what you have is an individual who will be a strong source of negative advertising to a large group of potential "Purpose" customers.
Warren has pointed out time and again that "Purpose" deliberately utilizes tried-and-true marketing methods. The best way, marketing-wise, to stop negative advertising against your product is to engage in preemptive negative advertising - if one can sow a negative opinion of a product's detractor before he even opens his mouth to speak negatively about your product, then you've gone a long way to winning the marketing battle.
Warren is a pretty good marketer and he knows the tactics of the discipline.
Those that don't stand up to the false doctrinal teachings are weak.
Hello, cellular sister!
I agree the members will be better off...but it breaks my heart for them. They've invested themselves emotionally and likely, financially in the church only to be told they're not important and to leave if they don't like how things are.
My heart breaks because it's happened to me twice in the past two years. Once with my homeschool organization and once with my own church of ten years. In both situations, they changed and pushed me aside like so much rubbish.
It's working out ok, I'm better off I know. But it was a hard journey there for a while and I just feel bad for these members.
Amen! I've been kicked out of several churches for doing just that.
Not certain that Matthew 18:15-18 is an applicable passage in the case of somebody publically committing sin or preaching abhorrant doctrine, or advocating abhorrant conduct. The passage appears to deal with offenses committed privately, or semi-privately.
Paul confronted public error through public rebuke.
...Which is why i am part of a denominational structure where the congregations and ministers are held accountable for their actions and teachings.
i've seen both cases where congregations were subjected to abusive ministers, and ministers subjected to abusive congregations...my old congregation was such. Our denomination was able to correct the problems.
Accountability is a good thing.
And I would agree with that. 2 out of the few hundred mega churches in this country actually act like a chistian churches. The remaining ones are not for profit corporations with plus signs on the front of the coporate palace.
But, I would go around making blanket assumptions about all large
If a pastor of a church is preaching the Gospel, accountability in one's walk, becoming free from the bondage of sin and living a Holy life, they will not be popular enough to get big.
Churches only become mega churches by preaching little c Christ and never suggesting that the church is itself is filled with sinners that need to repent, fall on their knees before the Cross, and beg for God's grace through Jesus.
That would be "too churchy and icky" for most people to sit through these days. It also mught sound too judgemental for the "seeker".
Nothing but ear tickling pop psychology. Just like Paul and Peter commented on 1,950 years ago.
I heard it as "If you find a perfect church and join it, it won't be perfect anymore."
Out of a 20,000 member congregation, how many people ever get to talk to the most high Warren privately anymore? With his "apologetics for Moslem Dictatorship" junkets, book signings, TV appearances, etc., how much actual face to face ministry has lord Rick done in the few years, outside the paid "ministry" staff?
He probably does'nt even know the names of 90% of his "flock". Maybe more accurate to say "can't" visit the pastor privately.
How about borrowing from Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't join a church that would have me as a member!"
As does mine. I'm saddened to see what the church has become. It's almost unrecognizable these days. I'm troubled to see so many following men rather than Jesus. It should not be the pastor's way but Christ's. We have so many pastors who are "stars" now I guess it was inevitable.
Even if you believe that, then there should be no problem in calling Roman Catholics, Roman Catholics. Unless you believe that Roman Catholics of "all believers of all denominations" are the only ones who are disqualified from calling themselves Catholics.
"Romanist" is merely a term that works for me and others given my doctrinal perspective
And "n*****" is merely a term for black people that works for certain white people given their demographic and moral perspective.
I already get it that you feel comfortable using bigoted epithets.
I'm just cluing you in that people who are slandered by such epithets don't share your comfort.
I suppose we could talk about Mary's fake after-Christ virginity
That would be a second thread-hijacking following your judge pal's first act of hijacking.
But you merely underscore my point that you are being deliberately offensive just to get a rise out of people.
And worse, you are dragging the Messiah's mother into your little fit of pique.
Disedifying in the extreme.
This apparently is becoming common even in some smaller churches. At a church I used to attend, you now have to go through the pastor's associate who evaluates your situation & determines if it is significant enough to "take up pastor's time".
"you too"? Do you mean this surprises you?
For me it's "Oh No, Chuck Colson, you haven't fallen for Rick Warren's cotton-candy gospel and I'm-gonna-save-the-world program too have you???"
He's drunk more than just THAT kool-aid. I've always said Jim Wallis (www.sojo.net) and Rick Warren are theological brothers. They both think the church should fix the world. (e.g. not Jesus)
Well, the countdown began a couple decades ago, actually.
He "knows more than" Joseph Farah (/sarcasm) because he belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations and Oxford Analytica, so he says to Farah:
''In fact,'' Warren added, ''as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Oxford Analytica, I might know as much about the Middle East as you.''
Am I on that list? If not please put me on. Can't remember if I asked you.
I trust him less and less. You gave me one more reason.
I'm glad you have so much optimism about the church in America. I have been having a really hard time finding one, large or small, that preaches the truth anymore, instead of 'self help' messages.
IN GENERAL large churches have tended to gather crowds *especially those that seem to grow overnight* by catering to the unbeliever or immature believers, softening the hard teachings of the Bible or leaving them out entirely.
To be honest, prayer meetings in the absence of good solid Biblical teaching is kind of a waste. Our church did it too. It ends up being a place where people pray *at* you (e.g. we all get together to feel like we're unified and really care about such and such but we're really nowhere near being on the same page, because no one teaches anything clearly here!).
Many of us noticed the subtle kind of preaching at you that is done when someone would pray out loud in a group setting, e.g. "Oh Lord, help us to have Unity, help us to put aside our selfishness and our differences and all work together" etc. in an attempt to guilt the ones with legit concerns into being quiet.