Some Links of Note on the Day After Christmas . . .
Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 08:34AM 
Hope that you all had a blessed Christmas! Here are a few things which may be of interest from around the blogosphere on this day after Christmas . . .
For all of you cat lovers out there, here is yet another news story proving the superiority of dogs. This dog gave his life to save his owners, while the cat (which probably started the fire) "escaped unharmed." Click here: Dog dies after saving Pullman, WA family from fire | Local News | kgw.com | News for Oregon and SW Washington
Many of you know that my family owned a Christian bookstore, in which I was raised, and which I managed for a number of years before the days of CURE and my call to the ministry. Yes, I have repented for all the Christian trinkets we sold (we did sell a lot of good Reformed books, however). In any case, while secular retailers may complain about this year's sales, the Christian bookstore industry is doing quite well. The only problem is that these "bookstores" now sell mostly blasphemous action figures and other accoutrements of the evangelical sub-culture. Click here: The Denver Post - Jesus may save, but Christians spend
Our Lutheran friend Gene Veith has a series of interesting posts on St. Nicolas (defender of the faith) and a defense of the proper date of Christmas as falling on December 25 (and not part of the pagan celebration of the winter solstice). Not sure I'm convinced, but interesting nonetheless. Click here: Christianity, Culture, Vocation — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
By the way, did anyone one else watch Rick Warren's Christmas Eve "service" from Saddleback on Fox? Was that positively awful???
To refer to the gospel as a "do-over" (a clean slate so that we get a second chance) and equate it with a "mulligan" (a golfing term for erasing a bad score) was typical of someone who becomes totally irrelevant the cooler he tries to be. The music, and the staging, and the repeated plugs for his 120 acre campus, his wife's new book, the Purpose-Driven everything, etc., was tacky as it gets.
I guess as long as Murdoch owns Fox and Zondervan, we'll get this inane drivel and trivializing of the gospel every year. As an old Christian bookstore owner who knows how Christian marketing works, Warren's Christmas Eve "service" was nothing more than an hour-long commercial for his "Purpose-Driven" empire. Sad.
Reader Comments (51)
Here in the East, the local American Baptist region and many of its churches embrace Purpose Driven this and that, as if that somehow cures their theological laxity by using something so thoroughly evangelical. As a contrarian to this whole Purpose Driven craze, I find myself in a distinct minority, and thankful for that!
>Your past is cleaned up by grace, now clean up and get busy earning it for the rest of your life.
ME: lol. Uhm, no. That is not what is taught at Saddleback by anyone, especially Rick Warren. It is by grace you are saved and by grace you are kept. And NO ONE earns salvation in any way, shape or form, before, during or after your life. Dude, get it right. :-)
>Indistinguishable from Mormonism, in effect.
ME: rofl. Uhm, no again. If you want to se what Mormonism teaches, check out my book "Inside Today's Mormonism," which contrasts LDS theology with Christian theology (which is what is taught at Sadleback).
Still the same old rumors and misinformation, I see -- so sad. But I still wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.
Richard Abanes
PS You should be more careful Kim. lol peace to ya.
I watched a portion of Rick Warren the other night. I turned to it expecting to find the news. My unsaved grandmother was there. When I turned the channel there and noticed someone (I did not recognize Rick Warren) sharing a Christmas message, I stayed there hoping it would be yet another opportunity for my grandmother to hear the gospel. I have shared it with her several times with no repentance/faith to follow.
When Rick Warren started speaking of mulligans etc. I immediately turned it off and clarified for those listening why his words were wrong.
We could discuss what classifies something as heretical or not. You may dissagree. But his teaching was heretical. I would agree that Rick would probably agree that salvation has nothing to do with works and that salvation is by Faith/Grace/in Christ ALONE. But his words were very clear... and they were wrong. His teaching needs to be consistent with the TRUE gospel. The GOOD News is not that our slate is clean and we have another chance, but rather that Christ has paid the penaty and has justified us.
Am I wrong here?
I hope everyone had a great Christmas.
If what you say is true then there is a great difference between what Rick Warren actually believes and what he preached in the televised sermon on Fox.
To equate the gospel with a mulligan is to trivialize the gospel. Are you actually defending this? As I see it, it is rather hard to evangelize people if your sermon does not contain the evangel . . .
It is not a rumor, a lack of caution, or misinformation to repeat what Warren actually said. It is an observation.
> I stayed there hoping it would be yet another opportunity for my grandmother to hear the gospel. I have shared it with her several times with no repentance/faith to follow. When Rick Warren started speaking of mulligans etc. I immediately turned it off and clarified for those listening why his words were wrong.
ME: Did you ever think maybe it is HOW you are giving her the gospel that is the problem? Did you ever think that maybe it was some aspect of the WAY you are presenting it that is simply not getting thru to her? Why didn't you let her listen to what Rick had to say, rather than clicking it off and basiclaly saying, "no, no, no, here's where this is all wrong"? Did you ever think that perhaps God may have wanted her to hear that message and speak to her thru it, and that you didn't give God a chance to do that?
The Gospel can be presented in a variety of ways, as different as languages. There is no single one way to talk about the gift of grace -- i.e., salvation thru Jesus Christ. People are different. When Paul was at mars Hill he quoted pagan poets! To many people, for example, the word "LORD" has lost all meaning. No one seems to know what it means anymore. So to a military soldier, perhaps I'd use the term "Commander-in-Chief." With someone steeped in the business world I might use the term ultimate CEO. The idea is to get people at least tihnking outside of their limited understanding of what "Christianity" is (usually a false idea), and get them open to Christ and to place where open heartfelt discussion can take place -- of course, all by God's Spirit leading and guiding and working in both us and them.
> We could discuss what classifies something as heretical or not. You may dissagree. But his teaching was heretical.
ME: RW is no heretic. I've spent my whole ministry dealing with heresy and trust me, he ain't no heretic. If he's a heretic, then so am I, and so are many other fine Christian leaders, teachers, speakers, and pastors in the church -- but they don't get teh kind of attention Warren gets, so they are usually spared the heretic label. I could, if I wanted to, listen to just about any pastor in America and pick out something they've said, and twist it in order to make them a heretic. Or maybe, because I am pretty much a Calvinist of sorts, just make everyone else who does not share my views into a heretic -- even tho they might preach the true Jesus, salvation by grace, the trinue God, and the Virgin Birth.
As for that Christmas message being heretical, sorry, I have to disagree. There was nothing heretical about it. he was concentrating on certain fruits/results of salvation (i.e., entering into a relationship with Christ), and discussing it as it relates to Christmas and the things we all experience and think about during this season. That's all. Too many non-Christians are stuck in this mistaken belief that Christianity is just a dead, dead, dead religion with no attraction whatsoever -- either for this world or the next one. There is NOTHING wrong with telling a person what they can expect in this world via a relationship with God the Father, thru Jesus Christ his son, by the power of the Comforter, whi is with us.
> I would agree that Rick would probably agree that salvation has nothing to do with works and that salvation is by Faith/Grace/in Christ ALONE. But his words were very clear... and they were wrong.
ME: See above. The whole "do over," "mulligan" thing was just an iillustration of being able to have a another chance at LIFE - temporal and eternal. Remember, "behold, all things are new"? Some people need to know that cause they feel liek its too late to start anything -- even a relationship with God. Is that so hard to see?
> His teaching needs to be consistent with the TRUE gospel. The GOOD News is not that our slate is clean and we have another chance, but rather that Christ has paid the penaty and has justified us.
ME: Bro, are you saying that once we are washed clear of our sins that we do NOT have a clean slate? Are you saying that by the blood of Christ we are not given a new life? Can't you see that this is a semantic problem where those attacking Warren are not happy with his terminology, but in many ways he is still saying the same thing. You do not have to lace every sentence in a message with the phrase "washed by the blood of the lamb" to effectively evangelize and get the gospel across to someone. Also, there are many, many, many benefits of accepting Christ as Savior, both here AND in the world to come. And look at the ministry of Christ. Did he ALWAYS preach on just one thing (e.g., the coming kingdom)? No. Sometimes he healed, comforted, gave parables, and even hung out for dinner and weddings. Don't put God in a box, is my opinion. The TRUE Gospel, as you say, is at Saddleback. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be there.
>Am I wrong here?
ME: yes, my friend, I think you are.
peace in Him,
Richard Abanes
M. Christmas. I certainly want no arguments. God knows tehre has been enough ugly interchanges between brothers and sisters over this, and in honesty, it has been painful to watch. But I'll address what you've said.
>To equate the gospel with a mulligan is to trivialize the gospel. Are you actually defending this?
I understand where you are coming from. You know I've been in apologetics long enough to know how I respect and revere the message of Christ. You know my work. Now, at the same time, I would say that although equating the gospel to a mulligan may sound trivial, it probably is not very trivialized to a person who has for years struggled to understand what the whole miracle of salvation is like -- i.e., someone NOT raised in the church, or perhaps someone who had a HORRIBLE experience with a church.
Imagine if they've never been able to grasp it. Then, suddenly they hear a fresh word used to describe what it's like to receive new life in Christ - a mulligan. A do-over. Everything that came before is gone. Erased. Forgiven. A second-chance is there to be had -- for free!! A free gift from God himself. Suddenly, they get it. Their fear melts away. Their uncertain and confusion dissipate. All this talk about how wonderful it is know Christ becomes more real to them. They decide they want that, too. They want to have a relationship with this Jesus who died for their sins. They cross of the line.
Oh, my friend, the word mulligan was hardly trivializing anything for them. It opened their eyes the gospel.
Do we, or do we not beleive that God is supreme and sovereign and can use a word like mulligan? I believe it. I have seen that kind of message break thru hardened hearts and minds as closed up tight as a tomb.
So perhaps Rick does say things at times that to some people may SOUND trivial because of old tapes we have in our heads about HOW the gospel MUST be preached, using certain PRECISE words that give it due honor, etc etc etc. But to those who hear the voice of God for the first time thru those trivial words, and who begin a new walk with the Christ of the Bible, they will forever recall those words as words of hope, peace, joy, and the beginning of a step toward Jesus.
My two cents for what they're worth,
R. Abanes
Sorry, but you are trying to defend the indefensible. That might be an old tape in my head, but I would hope that tape comes from the New Testament's own testimony about what should be preached and how.
I think Warren (and his hearers) would benefit from erasing the current "I'm trying to be relevant" tape in his head, and go back to the "I'm going to tell people the truth in love" tape. The gospel is never more powerless and irrelevant than when ministers try to make the gospel "relevant."
The gospel is not about someone getting a clean slate so as to start over . . . A new beginning (which, biblically defined, is far different from Warren's "mulligan" explanation) is one of the benefits of the gospel, once believed and trusted. But preaching about a "clean slate" as the gospel isn't preaching the gospel! That's a pretty basic point of Christian theology. I would think that someone who does apologetics would know that.
The gospel (as defined in Scripture) is the proclamation of Christ and him crucified for sinners (Galatians 3:1). In 1 Corinthians 15:1-6, Paul tells us that preaching the gospel includes the proclamation of Christ's death, burial and resurrection (according to the Scriptures). Those words never came out of Warren's mouth in that sermon . . .
All Warren did was quote from a half dozen paraphrases (we counted them--and none of them got the sense of the original language correctly) taken from all over the place. Warren completely avoided the cross and its necessity--namely, the satisfaction of God's righteous anger, so that sinners can be forgiven by the suffering and righteousness of another. You can't have a new beginning unless you tell people about what God did in Christ to provide for their forgiveness! By the way, the biblical category for this is justification and sanctification--not a "mulligan."
I'm 100% with you that bad preaching leaves people under condemnation. I firmly believe that the gospel, not the law, should have the last word in a Christian sermon--especially an evangelistic one.
But all Warren did was speak of "new beginning" using cutesy language without ever mentioning how that new beginning comes about. The gospel is about Christ's person and work, not "starting over." And to equate Christ's saving work with a mulligan has no place in a Christian pulpit (IMHO). That is to trivialize the very heart of our faith.
Then there is the whole issue of Christmas and the incarnation (which was glossed over and buried under all the gross commercialism and cheesy music), but that's another story.
To be frank, I was appalled by what I saw and by what I heard (or better, didn't hear). That's why I wrote what I did, and despite your attempts to defend Warren, I stand by my criticism. And I am very careful and hopefully, quite informed.
I will say, however, that you do seem offended somehow. If so, I apologize, I meant no disrespect, and I wish you well. You also seem a bit, tbh, hostile. I'm not quite sure why, but ahh well. Perhaps it is just this internet forum.
In any case, I hope and pray that wherever God leads each of us, our ministries will be fruitful and that many lost souls will enter into the Kingdom of heaven because of us and our sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them, and the free gift of salvation available in Him, only via the grace of the one and only Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, co-equal and co-eternal, who by the shed blood of Christ cleanses us from all sins. Faith in Him is the point, and getting people to know Him and what he did for us is what I care about -- not teh words I use to get that point across to him. I suppose its teh same way we break down certain concepts for children, or people in otehr cultures, or those who might be mentally challenged.
You said: "the satisfaction of God's righteous anger, so that sinners can be forgiven by the suffering and righteousness of another. You can't have a new beginning unless you tell people about what God did in Christ to provide for their forgiveness! By the way, the biblical category for this is justification and sanctification."
Well, that is very well said, indeed. Sadly, in my experience, with most unbelievers that I talk to on a weekly basis, they wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you just said.
peace,
R. Abanes
You wont be rofl, you may end up choking in a heap on the floor though.
Your awful book defending Warren and all things Purpose Driven is a load of propaganda riddled with distortions.
Repent of your sinfulness.
soli Deo gloria
Rick Warren is a blatant Scripture twister. The word "twist" from the Greek means; "wrench," "wrest," "torture." Rick Warren tortures, wrenches, wrests, distorts the word of God. Frightening. He cannot be trusted at all.
I am very sorry to hear so much anger coming from you.
The fact, whether you want to admit it or not, is that Rick Warren calls people to Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the one and only Triune God, who by His grace and mercy saves those who confess Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
I have seen people around the world who, rather than being deceived as you put it, have entered into a personal relationship with Christ, who by the power of the Holy Spirit has transformed them from slaves of sin to slaves of righteousness as a sign of them having been born-again of the God's Spirit.
You will not find a single heretical statement by Warren (you may need to actulaly look up what "heretical" means"). Nor, will you find anything that dispels the teachings of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone. That is, unless you find some isolated comment somewhere that lends itself to being twisted at the expense of a catalogue of other statements he has made on the same issue (sort of how cultists take one verse of scripture and build a doctrine around it at the expense of a plethora of other statements in the Bible on the same thing).
And as for my sinfulness, well, I am not really sure of what you're talking about, unless it is my simply stating the truth about what a man teaches who I happen to have heard speak on dozens, perhaps hundreds of occassions. A man who I also happen to know his personal beliefs both publicly and privately. A man who has expressed agreement with my own doctrinal books that stand as biblically sound (unless you can please show me where I am in doctrinal error on the essentials of the Christian faith).
As for his use of Scripture, I have been the first to say that he does not always get it right -- just like so many other pastors I have heard preaching, including some of the most popular in the country, who now happen to be critics of Warren.
Did you ever hear, "I stand at the door & knock" from Revelation applied to unbelievers? It works great, but too bad it's not to unbelievers. (Shall we now label every pastor who has ever said that one a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?) Anyway, I shall not belabor the point. Me thinks there is no reason to do so.
If you want a perfect preacher, you'd better just keep looking until you go to heaven. Then, you'll find one as soon as you get there.
In the meantime, if you don't like HOW a person preaches, that is one thing that is perfectly acceptable to express. But to make the serious charge of being a wolf in sheep's clothing as lightly as saying someone went thru a traffic light -- well... I shall leave that judgment up to God.
(I'm just glad we don't still live in the Middle Ages. I'm sure I'd be one of the first on your pyre.)
I do wish you peace, though -- and joy in the one who saved you to be filled with joy, and the spirit of love, kind-heartedness, gentleness, and humilty.
R. Abanes
PS. BTW, I...uhm, don't smoke. :-)
I have attempted to give each man my ear, and do feel I gained a sense for what Richard was after... the use of metaphor / imagery in communicating the message enabling listeners to understand.
I also feel Kim is stressing that some metaphors / analogies can be awfully detrimental in diluting the message.
Thanks to you both.
Kim, I'd love to see more of this on your blog with others who are well read regarding various issues regarding the gospel and its implications.
As for this issue in particular?
I do find Rick Warren's presentations to be often problematic.
I recall in his PDL he stated it was not about you, However he proceded to write a book that frankly, I found it depressing and constantly centered in what I the reader must do for God to be pleased with me.
The gospel is that though I am a terrible person; a scumbag of a sinner, God now counts me righteous, pardons my sins having imputed the righteousness of Christ to my account [of all of my life deeds]
Frankly for RW to say we need a Reformation not of Deeds not creeds is disturbing to say the least.
How can a preacher of the gospel say we don't need the creeds clarifying the gospel? It is the best news out there!!
RW's news to me is not good at all.
It is "try harder", "do more", "live right" etc.
What I intended to say was RW said we don't need a Reformation of Creeds but of Deeds.
Sorry.
Kidding, folks, kidding.
There are four things I want to make perfectly clear to you.
First, I am certain Douglas has overstated the matter. I believe that Warren did not communicate the biblical gospel in his Christmas Eve sermon--my comments on this post are about that sermon in particular. I did not say, nor do I feel what Warren said was "heretical." Obviously, Douglas feels differently.
Second, as for your approach in your posts, I don't mind replying to people who object to what I say. That's why I have always allowed comments and dissent on this blog. But what troubles me is the way you go about this. For example, you take issue with PB's comments--fair enough. Then you use flippant and juvenile lingo (rofl, LOL) to diss him. Then you have the nerve to tell us all "merry Christmas" and declare how sorry you are that brothers can't get along. If you don't see why that kind of thing gets my dander up . . .
Third, you say that Warren is the victim of rumor, misinformation, and accuse me of not being careful. I'll take that from one of my elders, a peer, or a good friend--someone who knows me and has the right or the authority to do so. But I won't take from someone whom I have never met, know nothing about, and who behaves in the passive-aggressive manner you have in your posts. Say what you mean and mean what you say, but be man enough to speak about truth without the sniping. You can take issue with me or anyone else on this blog, but you'll get as good as you give and it will be careful and thoughtful.
Finally, as for non-Christians not understanding what I said in my prior post--true enough. But I would hope that you noticed my comments were not aimed at non-Christians with whom I was attempting to share the gospel. My comments were aimed at you--someone who claims to be a trained apologist, but doesn't seem to understand the difference between the gospel and the results of the gospel. And I'm not even sure that you are clear about the difference between a clean slate (the infamous "mulligan") and the forgiveness of sins and justification.
I attempt to communicate the gospel to non-Christians by preaching from the biblical text (or opening the Scriptures to them) and then tell them what God has said in his word. God already did the translating for me, through the apostles (divine inspiration). After communicating the gospel, I then try to answer any questions non-Christians may have and explain things as best I can. This proclamation/defense pattern is found in Paul's sermons throughout Acts. Surely, you are not going to argue that Warren does it better than Paul?
As I see it, God can speak for himself through his word. My job is to tell people the truth in love as God has revealed it and then get out of the way so the Holy Spirit can do his work.
As a minister of the gospel, the worst thing I can do is preach myself (using a bunch of illustrations and stories), or trivialize biblical doctrines, which inevitably distort the gospel, even if my goal is making it more palatable to pagans, who, Scripture says, hate God. I'm not sure Warren's "translation" efforts are nearly as noble as you seem to think them to be. I see this as stumbling over the cross of Christ, out of fear that you'll offend someone.
No, if I preach the gospel, God will call his people to faith. My job is to preach his word, his job is to give the increase.
I read with interest your most recent post. Let us all back up here, and calm down a bit. I say calm down because it seems to be getting hot for no reason and misunderstandings are already flying about. I'll give you an example:
YOU: But what troubles me is the way you go about this. For example, you take issue with PB's comments--fair enough. Then you use flippant and juvenile lingo (rofl, LOL) to diss him. Then you have the nerve to tell us all "merry Christmas" and declare how sorry you are that brothers can't get along.
ME: Let me say that I was not being overly flippant and juvenile. I minister a great deal to college aged youth, those involved in chat rooms, and also even many people in videogames online. It is a ministry to the unreached for me. And there is a lightness in such arenas when discussions are had, even when discussing heavy matters. This is refreshing. My use of such "lingo" was simply my attempt to remain light-hearted about all of this and not take our disagreements too seriously. I see I failed at that. I beg your pardon.
And so, I will wear my best apologetic discourse hat, if doing so would make you feel any better. I have lectured at Biola, Cal Tech, and The Mensa Society, so I shall be more than comfortable in such a role. So be it.
Therefore, I will address your comments and questions relating to the discussion at hand tomorrow, using an altogether different personna that might be more fitting for your blog. I am running out of time for tonight. I shall first address your concerns, then those of Ivan whose words I appreciated greatly. And BTW, I full well realize the differences between the gospel and other issues. We shall get into that later. And yes, I am a trained apologist -- my record speaks for itself. if interetsed, you might also want to contact Gretchen (formerly Passantino) about me. She knows me well. And has, I believe some close ties to Concordia.
In conclusion, I do indeed wish all of you merry holidays, and I meant no disrespect to anyone present.
Until tomorrow,
R. Abanes
What a sad opportunity missed for Christ to be exalted in the proclamation of the Incarnation and the necessity of the Cross.
As it is said once again, what you win them with is what you win them to.
p.s. Whenever I hear Warren talk down to his audience as if they are little kids, I just cringe.
http://christmas.saddleback.com/index.html
Click below to watch a video of Pastor Rick talking about how to begin a personal faith relationship with Jesus.
What Does It Mean To Follow Christ
http://christmas.saddleback.com/followchrist.html
No one can "begin a personal faith relationship with Jesus." They cannot begin anything. Prior to the new birth, ALL are dead in trespasses and sins. Slaves to sin. It is God who does the beginning. Where in the Bible does it even remotely suggest we could possibly "begin a personal faith relationship with Jesus?" Where does this "personal relationship" teaching come from? As if Jesus becomes our "personal body guard or personal magic genie or something", who we can call upon anytime we feel like it to meet all our felt needs.
Here is a critique of the watered down, purpose driven gospel contained in the above video by Warren:
Critique: The Evangelism Message of Rick Warren
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.650
Purpose Driven Psychology and Human Wisdom
"In the Purpose Driven Life book, Rick Warren says
"To discover your purpose in life you must turn to God's Word, not the World's wisdom". He further states
"you must build your life on eternal truths, not pop-psychology, success motivation, or inspirational stories". After you read the following excerpts from his book however, you may find yourself scratching your head, wondering why it's filled with so many instances of exactly what he claims we do not need."
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.230
The Gospel According To Warren
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/print_articles.asp?ID=112
Rick Warren denies the Gospel
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2007/11/rick-warren-denies-gospel.html
Heresy
"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself." Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
http://www.carm.org/heresy/heresy_intro.htm
Another definition of heresy is "laying error alongside truth."
When I look into all of the above I see plenty of that being done by Rick Warren.