pouty-faced jealousy?
Over at CRN, Ken Silva, the general editor, published this excerpt from a recent article in the Christian Examiner about all the exciting things that were happening with the PEACE plan via Rick Warren.
A mammoth Christian mobilization effort—with a goal of tapping the time and talents of a billion believers worldwide. Pastor Rick Warren developed the PEACE Plan and unveiled it during a three-day, invitation-only conference that drew 1,700 pastors and business leaders from all 50 states and 38 countries…
“The churches have become fragmented and segmented in a large degree, and there are a lot of silos,” [Warren] said. “When you travel as much as I do and you get not just a national picture, but an international picture, you realize that there’s enormous talent and enormous potential in the church, but it’s not connected”…
it was followed up with this snide remark
O whatever did God do before Rick Warren showed up?
And that was the extent of his article. This is just another example of how the ODMs are not really 100% concerned with defending the truth, proclaiming the gospel, etc. It’s about attacking their self-proclaimed false prophets and teachers as much as they can, whenever they can. This reminds me of the kid on the team that always made fun of the other kids who excelled at the sport. They would usually make some sarcastic remark like “oooohhh! John’s soooooo cool. He can hit a ball all the way out of the park. woooooowwww. What ever would we do without him?” In reality, it was just their way of putting on their pouty-face (what my mom still calls it when I get upset at the age of 24 :)).
I find it just a bit funny that they make that statement about Rick Warren when many of them feel it is their God-given responsibility to make sure that the faith stays pure. As if The Almighty was not powerful enough to do that. I mean, whatever did God do before the Christian Research Network came on the scene*?
*Please note that the following statement was a use of sarcasm. It was strictly used to prove the author’s point, and is in no way intended to be taken literally. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
How do we know Ken published it? I guess any sentence begining with “O,” is a clue.
My question for the editor is what is Christian and what is research about it?
June 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
For the record, Ken Silva is officially responsible for all articles on CRN as the “general editor”. This is standard in all print media.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
What is the core disagreement with the plan?
June 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Rick Warren is leading it. Isn’t that enough?
June 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Oh yea, I almost forgot.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I used to think the PEACE plan was some sort of an attempt for nation to nation peace without Christ because that is how it was presented by its detractors. Here is the points:
Promote reconciliation;
Equip servant leaders;
Assist the poor;
Care for the sick; and
Educate the next generation.
The first point has been further defined as the gospel. So, which point do people disagree with, or is it who they include as contributors?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Furthermore…what did God do before we initiated the Truth War to defend God’s weak and puny Truth which needs our help to continue on and endure?
It all kind of reminds me of the movie Kingdom of Heaven where they’d all plot to kill the heathens because God needs the help of our swords to advance His means….and then one dude off in the background of the room would yell “GOD WILLS IT!!!” and then some other guy goes “God wiiiilllllssss eeeet!” and then the whole room starts chanting and puts on their man-shields to feel manly and runs out in to battle to slay their enemies in Jesus Name.
So…GOD WILLS IT!
June 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“with a goal of tapping the time and talents of a billion believers worldwide”
Kind of optimistic to think there are a billion believers in the world… I believe it’s estimated that around 2.3 billion haven’t even been reached with the gospel or even written scripture!
I think RW is living in a bubble. I do not have anything against him personally, I’m just pondering his plan…
June 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
He’s doing more than we are, that’s for sure, bubble or not….
June 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
*satire as defined ny CRN.Info*
Why preach the Gospel? As if The Almighty was not powerful enough to do so on His Own.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
FOR THE RECORD — yet again (since the ODMs willfully refuse to hear the truth):
The PEACE Plan in its entirety is an evangelism strategy to not just alleviate suffering, but most importantly, to remove those obstacles in the world that hinder the spread of the gospel in other countries. Fairly plain and simple.
See my article on WHAT IS THE PEACE PLAN?, especially under the sub-heading “An Evangelism Strategy.”
Documentation is provided.
R. Abanes
June 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thank you Rich…someone’s gotta keep things honest
June 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Jonathan,
FYI, as of 2008, more than two billion Christians populate the earth. The approximate figure of 2.1 billion (see adherents.com), of course, must be adjusted slightly downward to allow for:
(a) individuals who claim to be Christians, but who do not adhere to any of the biblical doctrines that would actually
make them a Christian (e.g., Oprah); and
(b)denominations/religions and cults that claim to be Christians but deny essential doctrines of the Christian faith (e.g., Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Despite such adjustments,
Christianity remains the largest religious group in the world, exceeding Islam by nearly 500 million people.
R. Abanes
June 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Yeah, Abanes is not biased at all…
June 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Dear Ken,
It’s not biased to present documentation and fact. Read it. The truth is there. I can’t help the fact that the PEACE Plan is what it is — an evangelism strategy.
As for bias — NO ONE is completely unbiased. Why? Because we are all sinners and fallible. But I try very, very hard to stay as fair and balanced as possible — unlike some.
peace,
RAbanes
I am off to a fabulous day of fellowship and food.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
His research is immeasurably better than yours Ken, sorry..? Personal opinion.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Ken, do you happen to think we’re commanded to FIGHT for God’s Truth? Or rather PROCLAIM God’s Truth…
Kind of a big difference…
June 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hold on…I gotcha…Phil 1:27….Jude…3…1 Timothy 6:12
….2 Timothy 4:7.
No need to present the verses to me.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I should say “WAR” for God’s Truth, not “fight”, as that can be misinterpreted.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I have been completely unbiased since January 17, 1994 at 3:53 PM with only one relapse yesterday at 8:34 AM>
June 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ken,
We all have our biases… for example, most ODM cannot see the words “spiritual formation” with assuming some kind of transcendental meditation - regardless of whether or not it’s true.
It would help immensely if you would (without calling him unnecessary names) tell us what is so unbiblical about PEACE.
Neil
June 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
OH, you guys, the word you need to describe this, which I will release into your tender loving care, is “POUTRAGE.”
They are “poutraged” at Rick Warren’s PEACE plan or whatever it is.
Just Poutraged.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Christianity remains the largest religious group in the world”
What? Where in the world did you get this stat?….So much for, “Narrow is the way and few there be that find it.”
“FYI, as of 2008, more than two billion Christians populate the earth.”
If this be the case, any preacher that says our evangelical mission field is small and the funding is less than 1% of the church’s income(stats from the book “Religions and World Missions”) should be repromanded for lying!
I believe this statistic, 2 billion, is a far cry from the truth!
June 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“you realize that there’s enormous talent and enormous potential in the church, but it’s not connected”…
Really??
The body of Christ is/has been and always will be intact, head and all.
You misread passages like 1 cor 12
I have no idea what Warren thinks HE”S connecting.
Abanes is a bloated and pompous.
So what’s new?
June 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Neil,
“most ODM cannot see the words ’spiritual formation’ with assuming some kind of transcendental meditation…”
This is another part of our problem communicating because this is just as much an exaggeration as you would accuse me of with a Rick Warren.
The issue is “spiritual formation” was used first by guys like Richard Foster and orginally meant his stupid spiritual disciplines, etc.
That guys like Donald Whitney, wrongly, try and “save” that term is another issue.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
O, and “pouty-faced jealousy?”
Hardly. Jealous of what; being a false prophet?
Nah, think I’ll pass.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Jonathan,
Why are you fighting about a stat?
June 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Stats
June 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Chris….Who’s fighting? I’m not…Just discussing! I like to verbalize my views and opinions just like everyone else.
I don’t believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that there are 2 billion born again believers on the earth. Not even close…a fraction of that.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
There are approximately 1.2 million Roman Catholics in those statistics. I believe Richard was quoting secualr statistics that include all Christian denominations.
Richard - will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as an evangelical church?
June 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Maybe - except I never use outlandish negative adjectives… you’re site aside, Lighthouse trails lists all the schools that offer a class with the word “Formation” in it’s description - then assumes they are wrong.
But then again, I have yet to see what of Foster’s disciplines are unbiblical, or why contemplation (i.e. meditation) is wrong.
Neil
June 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
It just goes to show ya that no matter what ya do - even trying to organize Christians to work together - somebody’s gonna find fault.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Rick,
“will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as an evangelical church?”
Asking it that way gives him an out because of the word evangelical. Will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as Christian church?
Yes. Rick Warren: “Every Facet of Christianity — Including Catholicism”
June 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ok, obviously the 2 billion stat is actually the approximation of how many people want to CLAIM to be Christians. No tests were administered to determine the validity of the claim. Most stats are fallible, but the point is, there are many people in the world who ARE Christians, and who are not using their time and talents for God to the extent they could if connected to other people who have need of their gifts (hence the use of the words “not connected”, Chris P). The actual number was not the point (or SHOULD not be).
June 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Also, after reading many of these articles, KEN, should I be surprised that you have not chimed in to explain your reasoning behind the article? The side comments do not help anyone reading this who genuinely wants to understand your position…
June 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Never mind, Richard, Ken just answered my question on CRN. As I alluded to in one of my earlier comments, it would be this association which would keep me and others from endorsing such a peace plan.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Don’t you know, 84.2% of all statistics are inaccurate?
The PEACE plan is just an ambitious plan built in the mold of a worldly system for the promotion of lofty and moral goals. We are living in a day when morals, to a large extent, are being elevated to a form of idolatry. I can cite my workplace as an example, but look at all the companies engaged in corporate responsibility and one-upmanship (remember after the 04 Tsunami as each country rushed to outdo the other in support?)
People are addicted to doing good even in the ungodly world because of how it makes you feel. You can live off the rush for weeks, which I suspect, is what Christians feel like after a short-term mission to Peru or El Salvador, etc… for about 3 weeks. It’s called the Jesus Complex.
Secondly, Catholics are not Christians in the biblical sense so those numbers are way off. Also, the polls are ridiculous because the ask people “Do you believe in Jesus?” “Would you consider yourself a) Christian b) Muslim c) none of the above”? Those stats mean nothing at all.
Christ must be central, not off in the shadows. But because He demands discipleship and adherence to truth, He must be kept in the shadows so as not to disrupt our human plans - we’ll just use His name, kind of like cheese on a mousetrap.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Paul: The PEACE plan is just an ambitious plan built in the mold of a worldly system for the promotion of lofty and moral goals. We are living in a day when morals, to a large extent, are being elevated to a form of idolatry.
RA: Why is it that you’d rather believe the lies, hate, rumors, gossip, and worst that you hear about that NASTY peace plan, rather than just looking at what the peace plan states as its goals and purpose?
It’s as if you WANT it to be some nefarious scheme of the Devil that you can talk about and expose, dare I say, you almost NEED it to be so. Why?
I have presented in the link above in June 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm EXACTLY what the peace plan is based on it’s printed material. If you’d rather believe/spread lies, for whatever reason, then you will be accountable to God.
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 12:50 am
How about we let God decide that…
June 29th, 2008 at 6:01 am
When a church teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, you will still find members who are a product of the system and show little evidence of being born again, and in fact, many are Biblically illiterate as it pertains to salvation itself.
But when a church like the RCC teaches salvation by works that gain grace, along with a myriad of reiligious teachings that have no Biblical support, then the number of members that are products of the system and do not veen claim to be born again elevates disproportionately.
And we do not show Christ’s love to Catholic people when the evangelical community soothes their conscience by assuming many are saved within the RCC because we wish to be benevolent toward them in opposition to some who show disdain, and because of the growing atmosphere of denominational unity.
Biblically we must recognize the Roman Catholic Church as aberrant and doctrinally unbiblical with even cultish tendencies. However we must love and reach out to the Roman Catholic people with the message of salvation by faith alone and the need for personal regeneration.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Somebody named James also said something along those lines about 2000 years ago…
Ken,
What are you doing to help the widow, feed the orphan and help poor? On what or who’s authority do you stand in criticising PEACE? To me it seems you are rather causing strife in the body of Christ.
14 Times in the Gospels it states that Jesus had compassion towards people. And every single time Jesus did something to alleviate the people’s immediate circumstance.
I am trying to hold my anger in here. The audacity to criticise and tear down the good work another Christian is trying to do is beyond my comprehension.
Paul C, believe me after 3 months of doing good the stench gets to you. The glamour disappears. Then it is only the love of Christ that can keep you going. Addiction? I don’t think so. How it makes you feel? Have you ever knelt next to a poor, filthy and stinking person, leading them to the Lord? Do you know the joy? Do you know that all heaven rejoices at that moment? I dare you try it. Sometimes those moments of joy are far apart. Then there is not much of a rush to live off. Then you just put your head down and work, because you know Jesus loves these people and you are the hands and feet of Jesus at that moment.
Ken & Paul C, what are you doing do alleviate the suffering of people in less fortunate countries than your own? I wish you can spend just one day with me and look into the eyes of begging children at every intersection. Perhaps then you will worry less if the PEACE program is enough evangelical to your taste and rejoice that someone is reaching where you are not able to. Through programs like PEACE people may live another day to hear the Gospel and change their eternal destiny. But to ignore people’s immediate need and even go so far to criticise those who do have compassion is sin.
If Rick Warren includes the RCC to help, so what? I am sure if there was some terrible disaster in your city (I pray it will never happen) you would help even if the person standing next to you helping is a RCC/atheist/Muslim. The world is in desperate need of your help. It may be far away from you and you do not feel the urgency, but that doesn’t change the urgency. Stop being critical of those who do help and rather start helping.
If I seem self righteous, please forgive me. I know I am not that doing enough myself to help the people in need. May God change my hart as well.
Ken & Paul C, if you are doing something to help, please tell us.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Gene - I completely agree with your humanitarian thrust, as do I agree with most of Rick Warren’s peace plan. But I can not agree with cooperating with the Church of Rome when it is still clear they do not teach Biblical salvation.
And most recently Pope Benedict reaffirmed the church’s belief that they were the only true church on earth, he is the Vicar of Christ in Peter’s chair, people of other religions can be saved by a good and pious life, and that Preotestants who know that the RCC is the true church but refuse to convert are in danger of eternal damnation.
Those things and MANY others constrain me from any cooperation with the RCC as an institution or her leaders. BTW - I and my business partner started(1993) and maintain a missions organization in Africa that both preaches the gospel and helps with the incredible humanitarian needs on that continent.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Rick,
By saying that I would work together with anybody and all who are helping the poor, I am not affirming their beliefs. If Rick Warren does, well that is his conviction and who am I to judge him on that? I think it is a great opportunity to be a witness when working together with a Roman Catholic/atheist/Muslim/… I haven’t had the opportunity to work with one of these yet. I would that.
When showing compassion something happens in my heart. The hatred for sin grows bigger, the love for my fellow man created in God’s image grows bigger and my love for God grows bigger. In times when I neglect the poor the opposite happens. It is as if the Holy Spirit uses those moments to form me. Kind of that interaction of faith and works that James talks about.
Rick, you know I have lots of respect for you, so I am not taking you on. I think you must live according to your own conviction on this. If you feel I must be corrected on something in this regard, please do so.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Yes, that would be my prayer. But when Rick Warren considers them as Christians in the same way as born again evangelicals, that weakens your evangelistic fervor and even your discernment.
I know many believers who were nice and friendly and even God fearing Roman Catholics who became born again believers outside the church. They now believe the RCC teachings to be unbiblical. I do agree that former Catholics like Ken should speak the truth without using language that is unnecessarily inflamatory.
But I fear Warren will cooperate on an equal spiritual footing and not be aware of the spiritual need within the Catholic people whom God loves and for whom Christ died.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
My own opinion - God will sort him out on that.
BTW. For smilies you can ue on a wordpress blog see http://faq.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/what-smilies-can-i-use/
June 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Thank you, brother.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
And some people believe that Chris L. is a Biblical scholar.
I’m going to love my new toy. In reality, I’m just a stupid, simple man.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:07 am
June 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
And that, my brother, is in very short supply. I believe my own reservoir runs embarassingly low.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Not to boast Eugene, but I lived in Africa in 2005-06 working in perhaps the poorest and most backward area of Kenya where the Lord led us to build a church from scratch which is still going today by the grace of God. I won’t get into all that is involved when you live in the bush in a foreign land notorious for its insecurity and despair.
Here are a few of our saints: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carrington/89220467/in/set-72157594225796394/
The point I am making is that the moment you open the gates and everyone is saved (despite salvation by works, despite praying to Mary and the saints, despite all the other paraphenalia inserted while Christ is only a part of it) then you are grossly misled. Effective? Sure. Misled? Absolutely. (BTW, I used to be a so-so Catholic before receiving the Lord).
A man must be born again - not born into religion.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Well spoken, Paul.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I am thankful with you that the church is still going and happy to hear where your heart is.
I think we should not so eaily judge others who feel called by God to do His work:
For someone who knows the need, the difficulty to work in countries like Kenya and the call of God to do somethink bout it, this statement is… uhm wierd. Meaning I do not understand how you can think this.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Gene - I agree in substance with that statement. Let me explain. Curing the worlds ills on hunger, disease, and poverty is a great challenge. But as believers, our calling is the gospel.
No where did the Apostle Paul call for these kinds of humanitarian outreaches, however our Lord commanded us to show these kinds of helps to our fellow man. What seems to be at least out of focus is the gospel as the driving motivation for this kind of enormous humanitarian outreach.
Even Jesus recognized the poor would always be on earth, but the Lord’s last words were to go and preach and make disciples. The issue is this, we must never blurr the lines between ministering to people’s physical needs and their spiritual need before God.
Those lines continue to move toward oneness.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Who cares Ken? Does a church save anyone? Did and institution die on the cross for us?
I think the finished works of Christ being the evidence of the power of the love, grace, mercy and kindness of God is sufficient to cover a multitude of sins…
To me that includes Catholics.
You make them sound like they are all un-savable with all your hate speak. Worse you make God out to not be able to forgive and save them!
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am
A Baptist church can’t save anyone any more than The Roman Catholic Church or Muslim mosque…
Only Jesus saves people.
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Rick you didn’t read Abanes article did you?
And yes Rick, the Apostles, and Jesus, called for humanitarian outreach. Sometimes without “and present the Gospel while you’re at it”. But Warren posits the whole humanitarian aspect to present the Gospel. Read Abanes stuff.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am
We are goin around in a circle: some believe that Catholics are “saved” Christians while others of us believe that a Catholic still needs to receive the Lord Jesus Christ and be born again.
The Catholic Church is full of erroneous teachings, covered up by pomp and ceremony. The promote concepts that are actually anti-biblical and think nothing of it (again, praying to Mary or praying to saints? How anti-biblical can you get?)
I am not disputing that many good works can be done by Catholics, or by corporations or by countries… That is a fact.
The need is definitely great… sometimes you cry at the despair around you. But the GREATEST need I experienced firsthand is not deliverance from poverty (this is a frame of mind - I can explain…) but spiritual deliverance from darkness - permanent. to see this transformation is stunning as we know.
The moment you start this “big, happy family” concept, you are simply following in the same vein of the world. Catholics should be ministered to so they understand the gospel, not simply assumed to be saved which is NOT love at all.
That’s the problem here: many people equate being nice with love. Sometimes, as the proverb says, these kisses are deceitful. Sometimes it’s the wounds (the clear confrontation that jars) of a friend (though uncomfortable) that is needed.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am
There is so much I want to comment/ask about this but I have to run to small group now. Perhaps later.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
The question is not “Catholics” but the Church of Rome. Catholics should be able to particpate but not the institution.
Iggy - everyone knows only Jesus saves. The RCC has for many years taught that the church saves. They still blurr that line.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Before I go…. We are working through some of Chip Imgram’s stuff in our small group and this scripture came up while I was preparing:
I am sorry if spoke down to any of you just now as if I m better than you. Especially Ken and PaulC.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yes, please, let’s get this straight. The PEACE Plan is NOT NOT NOT NOT just about humanitarian aid. Sigh.
The primary purpose of the humanitarian aid is to remove those things that are hindering the spread of the gospel so that the gospel can be preached to those who have not heard. Please read the link and documentation I provided.
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Eugene - not taken like that at all. Honestly. Have a blessed day!
June 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Richard - will the peace plan invite the institution of the Chrurch of Rome to particpate?
June 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Rick,
Here is the point, the bible is clear that we should not join in marriage or unequally yoked with unbelievers.
Note that it states “unequally” ?
If Rick is heading up the peace plan then he is in charge. Now if Rick was stating that we need to join the Catholics that would concern me, but I see that Rick is saying let the Catholics join us in our peace plan.
See the difference?
If we are subject to the RCC it is being unequally yoked, if they join us it is not only a plan for peace but a back door ministry to reach “unsaved” RCC people who what to work for peace.
What Ken misses is that Rick is taking the lead not lowering himself to the RCC headship.
Also working for peace is what “Believers” should be doing and calling others to join.
Note, that when Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount, that He was speaking to almost all unregenerate Jews… not one was “yoked to the faith”… Yet, Jesus stated, “Blessed are the peacemakers, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. ” So, the call to peace in the Name of Jesus is the call that those who hear will come to Jesus and receive Peace and then go out and give it away.
Again, what most ODM’s do is twist the scripture to the point that someone like me who is subject to a worldly boss in a secular job, by their definition… is in sin. That is not only sad, but mean spirited to heap condemnation on people who are only trying to earn a living and take care of their family…
Ken also assumes that Rick accepts the “doctrines” of the RCC… yet if he did, I suspect Rick would be Catholic and not doing what he is doing. Rick loves people. He cares for them deeply. Ken places a lot that is not only unfair but ridiculous at Rick’s feet… and in the end sets a standard of abuse on others that creates stress and division instead peace.
If a Mormon came to my church, I would let them stay, I would let them join us in our “works” ministry team… I would let them serve the poor and hungry and I would work next to him or her… but I would not go to a Mormon church and work under their leading… again see the difference?
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I would not. That is the difference.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Rick,
I’m not sure about inviting the “Institution.” LoL. It sounds so grandiose. I would venture to say that Roman Catholics will indeed be involved as will many other people secular/religious in the attempt to feed the poor, sandbag rivers, build orphanages, set up literacy schools, get medical supplies trucked into remote areas.
The end result will be a drastic reduction in those things that have hindered missionaries from spreading the gospel — rampant disease, poverty, illiteracy. I really do not see the problem here. Warren is using all means at his disposal to take out the walls that sin/world has erected against the spread of the Gospel.
If I wanted to go to a remote village to preach in Africa, but no one in that village could read the free Bible’s I had, but a Roman Catholic priest came along and said - “Hey, I’m an English teacher, do you want me to teach them to read? I can come with you.” Am I supposed to say, “No, you’re a Roman Catholic, go away”? Really, that makes no sense.
Or let’s say I needed to get food supplies to a village where everyone was starving so badly that they couldn’t even begin to hear me share the Gospel. I had 2,000 lbs of food, but no truck. Then, a Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or secular police officer comes along and says, “I have a truck. Do you want to use it?” Am I supposed to say: “No no no, you’re not a Christian — go away.” Once more, makes no sense.
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The narratives you suggest are fairly benign. What if a Roamn Catholic priest offered to teach in a village where you were giving food etc.?
Would he be allowed to teach RCC doctrine if the RCC has participated in the humanitarian efforts? You surely can see the essence of the concern. Ken has posted an article that quotes RW as saying some very inclusive things about the RCC.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Rick - I think what everyone seems to be missing is the actual foundation and premise of Mr. Warren’s initiative. He actually sees Catholics as already saved brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. The pope is just a brother, as you and I are brothers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So now, when it comes to preaching the gospel, my question is: which version? In his view it appears that it really doesn’t matter if its Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, whatever - as long as it’s done under the banner of Jesus. This is false.
No Richard, this is not the challenge of missionary work. It is unwillingness - these other things don’t hold back a person called of God from doing missions. So that argument becomes moot. We have all heard stories of people preaching the gospel - now and in the past - in the face of the worst obstacles. But God is not hindered.
That’s why your argument about human “machinery” (ie: the truck to take food or the priest who can translate) is simply invalid.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I find it somewhat disconcerting a disingenuous when Richard and others act as if they cannot see our point of view. The “sighs” are demeaning and used by Ken and others as well. This issue is not some wild rabid fundamentalist beef jerky from which we cannot let go, and it not so nuanced as to be incomprehensible.
I fully understand Warren’s point of view and he has every right to reject mine. But I find it distasteful when part of the discussion is to color a legitimate point of view as not only invalid but as being ignorant of the facts.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Carlos,
Learn to read. Rick asked that question.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Rick,
You sound like a different person all of a sudden. What gives? Why so seemingly hostile.
Now, as for RC, can’t we all realize that there are all kinds of godly, Christ-honoring, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians who simply have differing opinions on:
1) the category of RC
2) the state of RC “Christians”
3) the rightness/wrongness of working with RCs
4) the place of RC Church in relation to Protestants
I would suggest that all of you read the many different articles available on RC at the Christian Research Institute. These are some of the best articles around.
Warren is HARDLY the only person who feels that true Christians exist within the Roman Catholic Church. Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including myself, Ron Rhodes (who attended Saddleback when he lived in California), Gretchen Passantino-Cobern (Answers In Action), Hank Hanegraaff (president of the Christian Research Institute), and Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995).
Of particular relevance, is the book by Geisler and MacKenzie—both of whom are well-respected evangelical apologists. In their volume they discuss the many differences and similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, PART ONE of his book is dedicated to “Areas of Doctrinal Agreement” that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to “Areas of Practical Cooperation” that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).
Unfortunately, many of Warren’s critics are so vehemently anti-Roman Catholic that this becomes a kind of standard test for orthodoxy. That is unbiblical. The prejudice colors their view of other evangelical leaders—i.e., anyone who does not view RC like you is somehow compromising or heretical.
Once more, we come down to various persons making their own, personal subjective views of certain issues as the standard by which the orthodoxy of others is measured. You want to disagree? Fine.
But don’t go past that. Just say, “Hmm, I think so and so is wrong here, but he loves God and is doing some great work. I’ll go my way and do my work for my Lord in another way and wish him the best.”
R. Abanes
June 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Rick,
Jesus did…
1. No one is right… no one is righteous… yet Jesus forgave and reconciled us/
2. He reconciled us while we were still enemies!
3. Jesus calls us to Himself so that he can work in and through us.
4. This work is not only sharing our faith and the gospel, but showing our faith and the gospel in action.
5. If one joins us to do the works of Christ, then they are being drawn to Christ.
They are one or more steps closer being in a Christian church doing the believers calling than if they stayed in their Mormon or whatever church.
Again, Jesus called unbelievers to do His works why do you deny them that also?
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
My sighs, BTW, are NOT at your personal point of view about RC or your choices you make in relation to them. My sighs are at the ongoing need for me and others to try to explain what Warren’s view is — a view that is getting him labeled a heretic — and why his view/choices are not heretical. THAT is what I am tired of seeing/reading.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including…Ron Rhodes (who attended Saddleback when he lived in California)”
Things are not always as Richard makes them seem. Consider what Rhodes says within RICK WARREN IS SAYING PROTESTANT REFORMERS LUTHER AND CALVIN WERE WRONG in the quote from his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
That misrepresents the issue.
If these quotes are true, that is the core of the disagreement, not that there are true believers within the RCC. Even if I thought a person was a believer and a member of the RCC, I would not allow him to teach the sheep over which I was given responsibility.
If indeed Rick feels that the RCC is a Bible believing Christian church, I strongly disagree with him.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Dr. Carl F. H. Henry from the CRI piece Thoughts on the Conflict over Justification:
The RCC still teaches everything Trent taught when it condemned the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. If it was apostate then, it is still apostate now.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Rick,
I hate to say this, but……that’s it? Those three quotes? Warren has said NOTHING different from many many many other Christians, nor has he said anything heretical.
There is radical debate over what this all means. Again, if you disagree with Warren, then fine, you also disagree with all those individuals I noted. And, they along with Warren will need to be condemned equally.
Those who are in the RC church and who know/love the Lord, do constitute the church.
And because there are Christians in RC, as there are in the Eastern Orthodox Church, then they are indeed denomination that represent facets of Christianity.
The same, however, CANNOT be said for Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., which blatantly advance a false gospel, false Jesus, false god, and false spirit.
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Wow, those are some really damning quotes….
Now Rick, where you the one that was saved at a Billy Graham crusade?
“This past week I preached in a great Catholic Cathedral, a funeral sermon for a close friend of mine who was a Catholic and they had several bishops and archbishops to participate, and as I sat there going through the funeral Mass that was a very beautiful thing and certainly straight and clear in the gospel I believe, there was a wonderful little priest that would tell me when to stand and when to kneel and what to do…”. ~ Billy Graham
There are more quotes here .
So should we suspect your salvation? I mean should I be talking to you as you were led to Christ by a RCC lover?
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I am well aware of Billy Grahma’s views concerning the pope and the RCC and I strongly disagree with those as well.
Those type of statements are what usually break the serious essence of a discussion. Some of us consider the issue an important one, and I will again reiterate my position that I do not care what anyone thinks, whether they agree with me or not.
John MacArthur agress with me on this issue? Who cares. Warren disagrees with me on this issue? Who cares. I take an individualist stand on issues regardless of anyone else’s position and only adhering to what I personally believe the Scriptures teach.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Has anyone else noticed that the test for orthodoxy is no longer what you stand for/what you believe, but rather it has been perverted to be what you stand against/what you don’t believe? That is not biblical. That is not discernment. That is not apologetics.
RICK: I will again reiterate my position that I do not care what anyone thinks, whether they agree with me or not.
RA: Actually, Rick. You seem to care VERY MUCH whether Warren agrees with you or not. If not, why even bother dealing with it.
Moroever, Ken Silva and the other “discerners” certainly care whether or not Warren agrees with them. And since he doesn’t, then he is a heretic/compromiser, deceiver, false teacher. C’mon, it doesn’t even matter anymore what Warren actually believes in his faith, it’s simply become a mater of whether or not he hates Roman Catholicism. or whether or not he ______ (fill in subjective blank).
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Rick,
I find it disingenuous of you to way “Who cares?” as if those quote soooo bad, then we must hold all who stated similar things to the fire also. That would include the people who were led to Christ by a false teacher….
So, really I see you as a bit hypocritical at this point.
Now I say that as a brother who loves you and without malicious and condemnation…. I say it with sadness and hopes for reconciliation between you and Rick…
iggy
June 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Richard - the post was about the PEACE plan. And I asked about its intent and its methodology. I do not care and rarely mention Rick Warren and have just recently criticized others for defining his hospitality as sinister.
You refuse to acknowledge a legitimate view that substantively is at odds with the PEACE plan including your last comment claiming I was lying about caring what Rick Warren thinks as it pertains to what I think and believe.
And coming from you who have been so attacked and labeled as a Warren “lapdog” I feel is especially duplicitous. I have an opinion and no one else’s opinion impacts mine.
And so - I reject cooperating in spiritual endeavors and some humanitarian endeavors with the RCC because I view them as unbiblical. I do acknowledge believers within the church which does not change what they teach. (see Vatican II)
June 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Rick,
The PEACE Plan is Warren’ brainchild, so I’m confused, I think at your statement: “I do not care and rarely mention Rick Warren.” Warren and the Peace Plan cannot be separated. So, that’s why I mention Warren in this thread so often and the issues surrounding him - especially in the way Silva ties together Warren, the PP, and the RC.
_____
Rick: You refuse to acknowledge a legitimate view that substantively is at odds with the PEACE plan including your last comment claiming I was lying about caring what Rick Warren thinks as it pertains to what I think and believe.
RA: What? What has gotten into you? It’s like you’ve taken a ken Silva pill or something. I don’t even recognize your typing from the humorous, light-hearted, agreeable RF I’ve grown to know and love. What’s going on? I am NOT refusing to acknowledge anything. I completely acknowledged it:
Where am I refusing to acknowledge anything? Ken, is that you? What did you do with RF? Call Scully and Mulder!!!!
_________
Rick: And so - I reject cooperating in spiritual endeavors and some humanitarian endeavors with the RCC because I view them as unbiblical.
RA: okay, okay, okay! Dude, lighten up. In one thread you’ve taken our relationship to one of what I thought was a fairly agreeable one, to calling me duplicitous and disingenuous! Again, I ask: What is your problem today?
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
RA - Rick is being pretty consistent here - he’s always been against the Protestant church pairing up with non-Protestant Christians and non-Christians for humanitarian purposes (a position I disagree with, BtW, but love him anyway…
June 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“Moroever, Ken Silva and the other ‘discerners’ certainly care whether or not Warren agrees with them.”
I couldn’t care less if Warren and/or “apologists” agree with me or not. If that matters to someone then they ought not enter this battlefield.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
disingenuous = seeming like you are not cognizant of the particulars of the different views on the subject, including my view that certain cooperations contribute to my eschatalogical view of a coming one world church
duplicitous = you suggesting that I care what Warren thinks when you have vehemently against that labelling of you.
I do not understand you bringing Ken into the conversation, including accusing me of taking a Ken Silva pill. Obviously you have a difficult time discerning subjects about which I feel strongly. I feel just as strongly about the RCC as I do about personal attacks on anyone, including RW.
You can confront people about personal invectives to RW, you can be criticized for defending RW’s hospitality, you can praise his humantarian efforts in Africa, and generally accept him as a brother.
But when you substantially disagree with one of his organized efforts you are told to keep quiet or disagree without going beyond that (whatever that means). That seems like the theme in other blogs of a different nature whose comments can be summarized by “Oh, you are sooo right”.
I disagree. Substantially. Nothing to do with character, motives, or even not generally praying that souls will be reached. I still disagree substantially. Put me down in the minority.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Two definitions:
1. I care about what someone is teaching.
2. I don’t care about what that person thinks about what I think.
Sowhen I say I don’t care about what anyone thinks I am referring to the latter. That is why I almost never quote Luther, or Edwards, or Spurgeon, when it comes to saying “See, I believe like they do!”.
Irrelevant.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“The end result will be a drastic reduction in those things that have hindered missionaries from spreading the gospel — rampant disease, poverty, illiteracy. I really do not see the problem here. Warren is using all means at his disposal to take out the walls that sin/world has erected against the spread of the Gospel.”
Richard, this is the problem….We can see your views and acknowledge your position, yet you don’t come across as though you can see where Rick Frueh comes from in regards to joining questionables, like the RCC, in missions.
You would say, maybe, that the RCC are not questionable, but we believe the preach a different way to be saved. And in that deliniation from core evangelical teaching, we don’t believe in standing hand to hand with them in any endeavor so that we will never be mistaken in preaching or standing for the unbiblical standards we believe the adhere to.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Train up a child…
June 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Rick and Rich - can y’all perhaps ratchet it down a couple of notches?
Rich - Rick has serious issues with the RCC being accepted by Protestants as a Christian denomination. I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday (hopefully not in the near future, as we’re always praying about his health).
Rick has serious issues with Christians working with non-Christians and Catholics on any humanitarian endeavors. I’ve gotten a bit overheated with him on the same topic, as well, and think that he’s completely, utterly wrong on the topic. I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday.
Rick is not Ken - he’s Rick. Just as opinionated as ever, but just not opinionated in a way that you (or I) would agree with him. Let’s respect that opinion, though, without the ad homenims and hyperbole.
He’s not suggested that Warren is anathema for his position on Catholics (among other things), as Ken & co. have. That’s a key distinction, and let’s recognize it without ratcheting up the heat.
Rick,
I still would still disagree on the topic of aid and relief (which I consider to be an emergency) only being acceptable from a Protestant Christian. I’d note that the people being witnessed to are not only the ones being served…
June 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
So does that mean I can put myself down for “I don’t care what Rick Frueh thinks, unless he agrees with me (i.e. when he’s right).”
June 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Thank you, Chris, but that doesn’t alleviate the major problems I have with you!
June 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
General question (slightly on the current thread topic, though not the OP) - when you ‘witness’ to a Catholic, do you start from the tacit assumption “You’re not a Christian and you need to come to Jesus” or “OK, you’re a Christian - what do you think about [...] Have you considered [...] etc.”?
If they join your church, do you treat them as a new convert to Christianity or a brother who has grown in wisdom as to the teachings of Jesus?
June 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It’s like I have always contended - almost everything has subjectivity in it. I openly and before God acknowledge that Rick Warren has postively affected millions of people, but he would be the first to say he is not the “pope” as some affectionately call him.
PS - the smile face thing has given me fresh hope for my internet career!
June 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Chris - each situation is different, however, when a person says they are a member of “so and so Catholic Church” I immediately have my doubts. Usually when a former Roman Catholic joins an evangelical church they acknowledge a Christian conversion into which they will grow.
There are exceptions.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Rick, I just felt like for some reason you were acting very hostile toward me today, and I really don’t understand why……
June 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Richard - Nope, no hostility. Go ahead and criticize Miley Cyrus and you will see authentic hostility.
Chris has accurately outlined my position and his as well.
I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Richard, you must be able to discern the difference between being passionate in regards to a subject and not passionate against the person in whom you are debating in oppisite view of the subject.
It’s like my discussions with BTT…I passionately disagree with much of his statements/views, but when he represents his views, which usually strongly opposess mine, I don’t take it personally. I accept his view as his and I present my view without looking at it personally. Even though sometimes we stand emotionally erect in the view we espouse, we should take opposite views as not personal just thought provoking.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
My father has taken all his hostility out on my backside with the paddle of correction!!!!!!!!!!! It was his release valve! LOL
June 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“can y’all perhaps ratchet it down a couple of notches?”
Chris, maybe we should call nurse Ratchet to enter the discussion! Or bring in the cow bell for some harmony!
June 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
kk - here’s my calm bottom line.
1. Rick, you and others have an opinion abut RC, how it should be viewed, and if we should work with it. Kewl. Awesome. Great. It’s acknowledged, and accepted. You also love Jesus, serve him, and do your best as a sinner saved by grace to advance the gospel as best you know how. Again, awesome. I might disagree, but we serve the same Master.
2. Warren and others have an opinion abut RC, how it should be viewed, and if we should work with it. Kewl. Awesome. Great. It’s acknowledged, and accepted. He also loves Jesus, serves him, and does his best as a sinner saved by grace to advance the gospel as best he knows how. Again, awesome. I might disagree, but we serve the same Master.
That’s where the so-called RC “battle” should end — with all of us unified in the essentials and allowing for differences of opinion regarding how we see RC. But that is not what some people are doing. Some people are using a person’s stand on RC as a measure of orthodoxy and true Christian faith.
RAbanes
June 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Respectfully: Then were the Reformers wrong? They did not follow the above advice. They felt, as do I, that the Scriptures teach the RCC preaches a false gospel.
So those who do not agree that the RCC is anathema (Gal. 1:6-9) would not be “unified in the essentials”, being divided on THE essential–the Gospel itself.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Back in the day, Ken, I would have considered myself a Lutheran. Concordia Lutheran to be exact. We were typical Lutherans, only went to church Christmas, Easter and an occasional funeral or wedding.
Once I was born again, I thought it might be a good thing to go back to my roots, so to speak. Once there I learned that a lot of what was taught there was in lock step with some of the dogma that was brought over from the RCC. So, I couldn’t stay as Christ had set me free from what some would call bondages.
The thing I find interesting is that while you condemn Rick Warren for what he does as he reaches out to the Catholics, you walk arm in arm with “protestant” folks that some us believe hold many of the same concepts brought over from the RCC. From where I look, you are doing it only because you simply share the same common “foes”.
So Ken, how much of the RCC teachings can I adhere to without being apostate too?
If you’re curious, I agree with Rick Freuh more than I disagree…..
June 29th, 2008 at 6:12 pm