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)
For all of our sake - I hope the gospel isn't just a mulligan. I'm sure I've used all of mine up long ago.
Check this link out if you want to find the definition of a mulliogan! It's absolutley fits Rick Warren's gospel!
As a seminary prof, I know you can appreciate the importance of someone laying out preliminary points as a backdrop to their main arguments. And so, I would ask that you allow me this opportunity to discuss some relevant issues that seem directly related to the whole controversy surrounding Rick Warren, the rather mean-spirited/serious attacks being made against him, and how those actions relate to me, personally. My preliminary points are as follows:
1. Communication - This appears to be a major obstacle that individuals in the assorted anti-Warren camps are unable to overcome. I have found that a large majority of Warren's critics are solidly entrenched in one way of presenting the gospel -- be it the classic fire and brimstone fundamentalist style (one camp); or be it the hyper-intellectual, reformed, uber-big-words approach (another camp). Both groups, in my opnion, refuse to accept any other way of sharing the Gospel with unbelievers. To these critics, certain words, phrases, and terms MUST be used in order to effectively communicate the Good News accurately. One case in point would be Warren's most recent description of the gospel, or entering into a life with Christ, as a "mulligan" (and yes, I knew this one would get his critics worked up into a frenzy). But we need to take great care in analyzing any preacher's words, making sure to judge the overall message that they are seeking to convey, rather than necessarily judging specific isolated words, terms, figures or speech, slangs, or other aspects of their phraseology that we might not particularly like, use, or feel comfortable hearing in relation to the Gospel -- i.e., the fact that Jesus Christ, God the Son, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, came down to earth in human form to save us from ours sins via his substitutionary death on the cross for those of us, who by faith in Him, receive God's free gift of eternal life. That is what is indeed taught at Saddleback. I've been going there for nearly 15 years, and I was on staff for 2 years. Now, at the same time, I must also say that those exact terms are rarely, if ever, used in main services. (You will, however, get much more of this kind of theological-speak in the maturity classes taught to those who have become members or who are regular attenders). Nevertheless, such doctrinal views can be seen in the practical outworking of the lives of the people who attend the church, have surrendered their lives to Christ, have been baptized in obedience to him as an outward display of their committment, and who have then begun serving the church and all humanity as Jesus himself sent us out to do, while at the same time spreading the Gospel themselves as lights in a darkened world. How is this possible? Because the same ideas/doctrines I articulated using technical theological terms are being communicated via alternative terminology that is more relevant/understandable to the hearers. WE MUST NEVER JUDGE TRUE OR FALSE DOCTRINE BASED ON SEMANTICS.
2. Sectarianism - This seems to be another issue -- a extraordinarily powerful and grievously serious issue -- when it comes to so many of Warren's critics. I see this mostly in the Lutherans and 5-point Calvinists. To be honest, I did not realize that so much sectarianism existed in the church until I saw some of the attacks on Warren, who is a Southern Baptist. And for some critics, that right there seems to be an issue worthy of crucifying Warren. But don't expect him to be anything else but a Baptist. It is his theological paradigm and training (Dallas Theological Seminary). In my opinion, any and all criticisms relating directly to a conflict between his soteriology as a Southern Baptist and Reformed soteriology needs to be immediately dismissed. Otherwise, a Reformed critic would need to be just as antagonistic to all non-Reformed pastors, teachers, professors, and believers in general. Warren cannot be made into a Lutheran, or a member of some Calvinst church. If that makes him a heretic, then I suppose that's what he is, along with the likes of Billy Graham, Chuck Smith, Charles Stanley and whole lot of others I shall not list. Sectarianism leaves no room for other denominations, and destroys the unity of the faith. Sorry to say, no church/denomination has it all perfectly set out nice and neatly, from A-Z, every single thing about God, scripture, or the church. Why? Because the last time I checked we are all still fallible human beings without 100% of the knowledge/truth in the universe. How many scriptures have alternate interpretations that are held by renowned/respected Christian scholars? Answer: a lot of them. I, of course, am not speaking here of the essentials of the faith as expressed as far back as the earliest creeds: Apostles, Athansian, Calcedonian. My point is that denominationalism/sectarianism has no place in the body of Christ. And yet this very problem -- sectarianism -- has been a veritable fountainhead for some horrific charges against Warren.
3. Traditionalism - This remains a sticking point for many of Warren's critics. They have settled themselves very comfortably into the idea of how church and how preaching should be done. How church/preaching has ALWAYS been done - and anything new is wrong, ungodly, unbiblical, or without the Spirit. But the truth is that these same critics/churches have their own "new" ways of doing things, too. It's just that their "new" ways were "new" several hundred years ago -- or perhaps a thousand years ago. For instance, the traditional hymns now touted by so many people as the ONLY mode of true worship certainly weren't "traditional" when they first came out in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. "A Mighty Fortress" bears little resemblance to the Gregorian Chants, which certainly do not reflect the 1st century tunes likely sung in the catacombs or church houses by Jewish converts. And speaking of church houses, they were replaced by cathedrals with stained glass, which in turn gave way to modernized architectural structures. And there is also, of course, the "sinner's prayer" that has become a standard in many churches - it is really nowhere in the Bible. This is all my way of saying that the church in general, including its appearance, music, preaching styles, etc., has evolved and must continue to evolve with culture. Does this mean the substance of the Gospel needs to change? No. No. And again, no. But the ways that the message can be communicated must change in order to reach new generations and new cultures. There is nothing sacred about methods or traditions. Christ and his free gift of salvation is what matters. Getting people to understand Him and His gift is the point of evangelism -- and no, I do not mean that it is accomplished by human means. Salvation is totally by the Holy Spirit, but God works THROUGH us: our thoughts, our personalities, our ideas, our vocabularies, our experiences. He uses us and who we are to reach out to others and work in them. Traditionalism says, "NO. It must be done this way, using these words, in this setting, with this music, in this manner or else it is not of God and is unbiblical."
These are the three issues that I see underlying a great deal of the controversy surrounding Warren. I got involved as an apologist simply because it was too grievious for me to idly stand by and do nothing while I watched a godly individual/movement being unfairly, unwisely, and unlovingly attacked for no good reasons. I also must say that I don't think I have ever seen someone so viciously attacked by Christians. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientologists have gotten more respect and kindness than Warren has gotten. If we want to talk about lacking the Spirit of God, then I would point not in Warren's direction, but instead, to a plethora of his critics who have denounced him using absolute lies, mockings, half-truths, selective quotations, and bizarre rumors -- all permeated by a tone of pure hatred. It has been sad to watch. And for simply seeking to correct some of these errors, I have been castigated as being a non-Christian, a greedy money-grubing compromiser on Warren's payroll, and even a New Ager seeking to help usher in the One World Government and coming anti-Christ (Kim, please do forgive me, but I have to insert an "lol" here). I can't even count how many times I have been told to "REPENT!!"
None of these accusations, of course, are true. I work for no one, but God. I have done nothing on the Warren issue that I have not done in connection to the many other issues I have covered in my work. I often go online and discuss the subjects about which I have written (see abanes.com). Doctrinally, I am about as conservative/biblical as they come. Anyone can read my books and see that. I have received endorsements for my work from D.James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church), Norman Geisler (Southern Evangelical Seminary), Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ), James Walker (Watchman Fellowship), Hank Hannegraaff (CRI), Gene Veith (Concordia), LeLand Ryken (Wheaton College), Francis Beckwith (Baylor), Doug Groothuis (Denver Theological Seminary), J.I. Packer, Ron Rhodes, Dr. Alan Gomes (Talbot), etc., etc. etc.
Subsequent posts that I shall make will address point-by-point the specific comments made in some of your previous posts. I would ask that you be patient as I formulate these responses throughout the day. One of things I CANNOT do, of course, is reprint huge portions of my book, "Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him," which provides concise refutations of some of the most oft-seen criticisms of Warren and also documents exactly what Warren believes doctrinally (and what is taught at Saddleback).
You've perfectly illustrated the problem here! The "gospel" is not the same thing as "entering into a life with Christ."
The problem here isn't so much the method of preaching the gospel but that it isn't the gospel being preached. With all due respect, sir, it seems like all of your comments so far seem to confuse the Gospel with the effects of the Gospel.
What do you think of max's golf analogy? Is this the message that is preached at Saddleback or is the Saddleback message closer to "the mulligan"? I'm sure an unbeliever would rather hear the mulligan message because it leaves room for him to save himself and earn brownie points with God. However it is not what he needs to hear.
My problem with his use of that analogy is that he used it in a prepared sermon so he had plenty of time think about it.
Thank you for not replicating your book-long defense of Rick Warren on my blog! Good grief, the discussion is about Warren's Christmas sermon, not you or your book.
If we want to know more about your thoughts on Warren's theology, we'll get your book and read it. The issue under discussion in this thread is Rick Warren's Christmas sermon.
Furthermore, the issue under discussion is not the "sectarianism" or "denominationalism" you don't like. This is a red herring. Those who opposed the Reformation and continue to do so (the Anabaptists, pietists, Arminians, and so on) have always raised these charges against historic Protestant theology.
In fact, there is a reason why the same old charges are made over and over again--all these groups have tried to move beyond the clear affirmations of Scripture. And it is the historic confessional Protestants who have insisted upon using biblical language and categories (because our confessions utilize that language and are summations of the biblical texts on all matters they address). Of course, we are going to sound like those who have gone before, because our theology, like theirs, is drawn from the text of Scripture, not from the lingo of a given culture--in this case, American pop culture.
My point is that it is a dangerous thing to attempt to "translate" the gospel to reach a broader audience. As with Warren's sermon, you lose the essence of the gospel when you use slogans like "mulligan," instead of preaching Christ and him crucified as Paul instructs us.
When historic Protestants call these groups out for departing from the gospel (often in the name of making it "clearer", or more palatable) the innovators cry "sectarian!" "Traditionalism!" I've heard this before and am not persuaded. Neither will I let you change the subject.
With that said it is back to the subject of this thread--please define and defend the use of "mulligan" in a Christian sermon.
Once again, others on this blog have capably made the point that Warren misrepresented the gospel using such terms. And I whole-heartedly agree.
> 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.
See #1 in PART 1. Such phraseology is not irrelavent to someone who needs that phraseology to understand that in Christ old things have passed away, behold all things are new (2 Cor. 5:17). It's just a way of helping someone wrap their mind around the concept of a new beginning. What is the problem with that? And in order to explain exactly HOW that happens, Warren immediately quoted Colossians 2:13-14: "God makes you alive with Christ when he forgives all your failures and sins. he did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the laws God established. He took those charges away by nailing them to the cross." Are you telling me this is not good enough to get the point of the Gospel across to someone in America? I'm not sure how much more you can ask for. It seems fairly clear to me that point being communicated is that new life, a new beginning (to borrow the phrase used by Greg Laurie's radio program), a fresh start, a complete life do-over starts via forgiveness of our sins through Christ who took our guilt penalty and nailed it to the cross in his body! Is this theology at its deepest? Hardly. But it's probably good enough for some estranged Catholic aunt, uncle, or cousin at Christmas who hasn't been to church in 25 years, and who is in desperate need of Jesus because their life has literally gone to hell in a handbasket.
> 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. . . . 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.
Tacky? Hmmm, well, I sang a truly moving solo called "The Song of Christmas" at eight of those services and I don't think there was anything tacky about a word I sang (listen here - http://hosted.filefront.com/eleuthereus, scroll down and click on "The Song of Christmas"). Chorus lyrics included, "Can you hear it? The sound of peace on earth. It's the song of Christmas. Celebrate His birth. It's the chorus that rings in human hearts. God came down here with us. It's the song of Christmas." Verse lyrics included, "The shepherds spread the word. The greatest story ever heard. How God came down to save us. Our Lord, Emmanuel." Tacky? Sorry, it sounds like Christmas to me. I suppose we could also call lighted reindeers on our front yards, manger scenes, and caroling off-key a little tacky, too. But, forgive me if I don't share in your perspective. For many people, the music, the candle-lighting at the evening services, and the message were anythng but tacky. I saw many individuals moved to tears at the thought of God coming down to us as a lowly child in a manger. I heard many comments from people saying how the service inspired them to really think more about Christ and what it means to follow him. And several people made decisions to take a step closer toward becoming a Christian (not to mention those who actually went so far as to actually accept the Lord as their Savior while there). And as for mentioning his wife's new book, Rick feels it might really help people. I see no probelem with that. As for his noting of Purpose Driven materials or other aspects of Saddleback, well, that's because he's trying to get people connected to materials and a church that might help them continue moving on in their growth either WITH Christ or TOWARD Christ. And by the way, if you would have watched the service all the way through, you would have heard him also tell people to just get connected with a "good church" wherever they happen to be. He did NOT say you must come to Saddleback, which indicates to me that he was not seeking at all to enlarge what you disdainfully refer to as his "empire."
> I guess as long as Murdoch owns Fox and Zondervan, we'll get this inane drivel and trivializing of the gospel every year.
Here is a thinly-veiled accusation (or at least a not-so-subtle implication) that the whole Saddleback/Warren movement and ministry is all about money, money, money. First, that is a rather serious charge to throw around. Do you have any proof of that? What evidence do you have that would in any way back such an implication? Second, it all may have been inane drivel to you, but it was poignent and life-chaging to those I mentioned in my above remarks -- i.e., those who actually listened to what Rick was saying overall and got something out of it (rather than trying to find fault with him).
Now, back to the money/empire issue. This is not only a non-provable charge, but one that is contradicted by the facts.: 1) Saddleback gives away tons of materials -- from books, to tapes, to pamphlets, to sermons; 2) Warren has given back all of teh salary he was ever paid since beginning the church two decades ago; 3) Warren is a reverse-tither - i.e., he gives back to the church and to charities 90% of his income, and lives on 10% of it, still residing in the same modest home he has lived in for years, still driving the same car. You want empires? Turn on TBN. Saddleback is not about money, nor the making of it. Unless you actually have something substantial to show that bolsters such an implication, I would respectfully request that such innuendos be avoided. Really, Kim, I don't think you need to do that.
--- to be continued
> 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.
Not really. See my above remarks regarding "Communication" and the infamous mulligan analogy.
>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 . . .
See my previous posts regarding trivialization.
> It is not a rumor, a lack of caution, or misinformation to repeat what Warren actually said. It is an observation.
I actually directed this primarily to many other critics of Warren, not necessarily you. Forgive my lack of clarity. You are right in that you were making an observation and expressing your opinions on what you heard him say. Although, as I have already noted, your comments about Murdoch, Fox, Zondervan, and Warren really straddles that line between observations and unwarrented accusations/implications.
------ to be continued
> 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.
You have conjoined to different things here. 1) WHAT should be preached; and 2) HOW it should be preached. I think we are in agreement on WHAT should be preached - the "how" of it is where we cross swords. The Gospel is the Gospel: i.e. the life, death, and resurrection of biblical Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). That's it - and in about the smallest nutshell you're gonna find. But I am not going to communicate this the same way to a Buddhist, cultists, atheist, college kid, successful business man, soldier, pre-teen, ex-drug addict, cultist, etc. etc. etc. There is a wide spectrum of ways to share this good news. The truth of it must always be present, but the analogies, terms, life-application imagery, even personal stories shared will change depending on the one to whom I am speaking. I am not just going to stand up on the street corner and read some passage of scripture, or recite some doctrinally sound confession of faith, then leave it just hanging in the air with the prayer, "Ok, God, you're God, now you go ahead and do it all by the Holy Spirirt - my work is done. I have preached the gospel."
Witnessing to others on a personal level, while we are listening and being moved by the Holy Spirit is just as much for us as it is for the hearer of our words. And preaching in the pulpit needs to be just as personal. Who are we preaching at? What words/images do they understand? Are you really suggesting that we are to simply read a passage from 1 Corinthians, then not try to make it relevant at all to a person's everyday life, or be concerned about where they are mentally, emotionally, psychologically, or whether they even understand the words we've read to them? They're spiritually dead, but they're not dead. They're people - living, breathing, thinking feeling, people who can either communicate effectively to, or not. And sadly, it seems that a far too significant number of Christians are content with not communicating to them We do, however, seem to enjoy preaching to each other. But that, in my book, is a deadend that results in dead churches that non-Christians avoid like the plague. Who can blame them? I can't.
> 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."
Really? It is odd that you would say this. I was under the impression that the "I'm trying to be relevant" and the "I'm going to tell people the truth in love" tapes were not mutually exclusive. I certainly have no trouble engaging both of these tapes while ministering to others. And from what I have seen at Saddleback -- insofar as the numbers of people I have witnessed coming to Christ -- Warren and the other pastors don't seem to have trouble doing it either. I am perplexed at why you seem to not view both ways of doing things as compatible. My fear is that is not the "I'm going to tell people the truth in love" tape that is playing in the mind's of some individuals, but rather, it is the "I'm going to tell the truth in the way it has been told for the last 100 years way" tape -- complimented by the "Any other way to tell the truth, using updated language and imagery is wrong" tape.
> 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.
Very, very, very, astute and so precisely worded that what you have actually done is use a theological scalpel to dissect the totality of the salvific experience, finely delineating between the nugget-bottom-line raw gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that saves and the outcome of the gospel (both eternal and temporal). Both are presented by Warren, but unlike classic preaching, he takes more time to explain the "new beginning" aspects of the gospel (the results, if you will), and works his way backwards to HOW those results are realized/imparted in one's life -- i.e., through the acceptance of Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the cross and rose again (acceptance of teh Gospel). What you and others don't seem to like is this reversal of order, coupled with the percentage of time he spends on "Concept A" vs. the percentage of time he spends on "Concept B." Percentages don't matter. The question is: Is the Gospel there? In Warrren's case, the answer is: yes. It is indeed there. But he takes great care in pointing out to people, not JUST the gospel, but also the fruits of the gospel in one's life -- eternally (everlasting life with God, ratehr than eternity in hell) and temporal (peace, joy, purpose, meaning, fulfillment, significance, etc. etc. etc.). He effectively blends the two of them rather seamlessly. To be honest, it's not that Warren isn't preaching the "Gospel" that's making people angry. He does preach it, and I can give you the quotes to prove it. The issue is that people are not liking how much time he spends talking about the temporal fruits of the gospel that become real in our lives once we are saved -- what you would call the "new beginning," and which Warren in the Christmas message reduced down to expressing as a mulligan, a do-over, a clean slate, or a fresh start. And yes, when your sins are wiped out by the power of God through the shed blood of His son on the cross, you do indeed have your sins taken away -- your slate is wiped clean and your life is new. It's a grand concept, so grand that maybe some people need to hear it explained as a mulligan, a do-over. Well, that might offend you, but it also might be just the term that breaks through to someone who hasn't been reached using any other terms like "forensic act" of God, or "substitutionary," or "imputation." So as to be clear, at Saddleback, salvation/eternal life is available ONLY through Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins, and by whose righteousness we become righteous -- not by anything we do, but by everything he does in us, as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-18).
> 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 . . .
True. Never did he say those EXACT words using those EXACT verses. He did, however, say these words: "God makes you alive with Christ when he forgives all your failures and sins. He did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the laws God established. He took those charges away by nailing them to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14). And these words: "Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we've been given a brand new life and have everything to love for, including a future in heaven--and that future starts now" (1 Peter 1:3-4). These were complimented by an assortment of other phrases that clearly pointed people to Christ and how he can impact their lives. And, btw, this is Jesus' birthday celebration, not Easter. Hence, there was more of an emphasis on his coming, rather than his death & resurrection (which is more the central theme at Saddleback in April). This is not enough? It seems, from what I have heard, that plenty of people understood exactly what Warren was saying, being already very familiar with the idea that this Jesus lived, died, and rose again. We do live in America, after all. The Jesus story is not some foreign concept that the average person coming to Saddleback, or watching FOX, or seeing it on the Internet wouldn't know. Again, it seems you have this "tape" going on that says, "such and such must be said, or it ain't the Gospel."
> 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.
God forbid he would jump around in scripture "all over the place." Perhaps if you would have spent more time listening with an unbeliever's ear, rather than listening as a seminary professor counting how many bible verses he used, you might have heard the overarching point that he was trying to make -- i.e., if your life is empty, lonely, desolate of meaning, broken, filled with regret, with no hope for you in this life or in the next, then there is a solution to all of those things; namely, Jesus Christ, who took away your sins by nailing them to the cross. That's why so many people celebrate his birth. You need to receive him. Are we really getting hung up here on his use of the word mulligan in the face of his overarching message? I just can't fathom this kind of nit-pickiness. And I am not one to take doctrine lightly. (Please see my "Inside Today's Mormonism" book or my "Defending the Faith: A Beginner's Guide to Cults & new Religions").
> 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."
As I said in my previous post to you, most of the unbelievers who were there wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you just said. Moreover, Warren did at least quote Colossians 2:13-14, which talks of Christ nailing "the charges against us" to "the cross."
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
See my previous response to this particular point.
> 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.
I really don't think people needed/wanted to hear a walk through Berkof's Systematic Theology with regard to the incarnation, complete with 100 scripture references from Genesis to Revelation that irrefutably prove that Christ was indeed theanthropos. Those who attend Christmas services (for some, usually the only time they come to church), need to hear exactly what Warren gave them -- a message of hope in Christ. As for the cheesy music, well, that hits me pretty hard on an extremely personal level, and rather than deal with that, I'd better just keep my thoughts to myself. And yes, that dig from you did hurt my my feelings.
---to be continued
> First, I am certain Douglas has overstated the matter.
Agreed
> 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.
Understood.
> 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 . . .
Addressed in previous post. Apologies all around.
> Third, you say that Warren is the victim of rumor, misinformation, and accuse me of not being careful.
This was really more a reference to numerous rumors on the Internet, including the charge that Warren is a full-blown heretic.
> 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.
Well, as mentioned earlier, I meant no passive-aggressiveness. I hope we have cleared that one up.
> 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.
Agreed.
> Finally, as for non-Christians not understanding what I said in my prior post--true enough.
Okay. That's a start.
> But I would hope that you noticed my comments were not aimed at non-Christians with whom I was attempting to share the gospel.
True enough. But you were commenting on what was lacking in Warren's message, which WAS going out to non-believers. If your own theological wording is not what you yourself would have used for unbelievers at a Christmas, then was it not appropriate for Warren to also choose different words? Maybe you didn't like the words he picked, but that's a matter of personal choice, not necessarily wrongness or rightness.
> 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.
If we are talking "imputed righteousness," yes I understand it. But I am not going to mince words over this issue when I am trying to preach to unbelievers. What they need to know is that our sins are forgiven as completely as if they were erased from a blackboard. It's hard for me to comprehend why we are even arguing over such intricate splicing of doctrines when we're talking about preaching to people who are unchurched, or talking to those who have fallen away from God. They don't need to sit in a seminary class. They need to hear about the love, peace, joy, forgiveness, eternal life, and purpose available in Christ. Maturity means maturity. You are sounding as if it is perfectly acceptable to shove meat down a babies throat - or worse, a dead man's throat.
> 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?
This is ONE method or philosophy of evangelism. Fine. Go for it. Have a good time. God bless you. However, this is not the only acceptable means of sharing the truth of Christ with unbelievers, either corporately or in an individual setting. As an apologist, counter-cult minister, and worker with youth, I have witnessed not only in the way you describe, but also by taking those very scriptures and re-translating them into my own vocabulary and the vocabulary of whomever I may have been talking to. Have I seen results in each setting? Sure. God is not limited. As I said in part 1 - God uses who we are as his people, as individuals he created us to be, complete with different vocabularies, personalities, life experiences, and ways of communicating to others. Does Warren do it better than Paul? No, not when it comes to the way God wanted to communicate what he communicated through Paul and the way he wanted to communicate it. But nowhere in scripture does it say we MUST share what Paul said by simply opening up his epistle and reading his words, then leaving it at that. Using your logic, we might as well throw away children's picture book Bibles, stop holding preaching classes in seminaries (hey, just get up there and read a few passages from Romans, then let God do his thing), and have only one translation of the Greek/Hebrew.
> 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.
God can also speak for himself through all kinds of words, and dreams, and revelation, and experiences, and interactions with other people. A biblical passage unintelligable to someone can be paraphrased by me into something that they finally understand. Is this me? NO!. It is God using me, using who I am as a person, to convey His truths to someone. It's still God. It's still His truth. It's still the Gospel. You, however, are saying that your way should be the way for everyone, or else they are committing a grave error. So are you truly saying that your method of communicating the Gospel is God's only ordained way of doing it? That he cannot use any other means of expressing himself through others? If so, you are putting God in a box, IMHO. What of the many people who have come into a life-saving relationship with Christ and who are serving Him as a direct result of Warren's preaching methods and some of the terminology he has used to break through the walls in their minds and hearts? Are you saying they are all unsaved? These individuals are now some of the most godly, inspired, servants of Christ that i have ever met. What do you do with them?
> 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.
1. I'm not sure why using illustrations and stories is preaching the "self," if I remember correctly Jesus used plenty of illustratiosn and stories. 2. You may think doctrines are trivialized by use of certain terms, but to be honest, that is your opinion, not fact. Such doctrines are not trivialized at all if the use of alternative expresssions renders them understandable and acceptable to the hearer. They remain as grand and awe-inspiring as ever. And it is tragic to me that you cannot recognize this. 3. Making the gospel more "palatable" to unbelievers is a misrepresentation of what is happening. The goal is to make the Gospel more understandable. There is a big difference.
> 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.
I know Warren personally. I see what he says on a consistent basis. I have personally discussed many issues with him. I know the people who go to Saddleback (one of whom was Dr. Ron Rhodes, btw, until he moved back to Texas). I know hundreds of fellow believers who attend and serve/love Christ with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is not an issue at all of stumbling over the cross, which central to our faith. It is all about helping those who have never met Christ finally meet him at the cross. Believe me, those of use who go to Saddleback, when we talk to others about Christ, offend plenty of them - the ones so hardened to God that they just do not want to hear it, no matter how it is said. I hope someday, the Lord will use others, perhaps using other methods, to reach them.
> 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.
Indeed. And Warren does preach the word. As do I. As do many others at Saddleback. But we don't use your methods or your approach. In the end, it is still God who gives the increase -- to Him be the glory.
OVER - Finally. Now on to the comments of some others.
R. Abanes
Yes, I love to write.
My husband is a veteran techie in the "church entertainment biz" and an unbeliever. He's seen/heard IT ALL when it comes to marketing "the gospel" with "loud = excitement = the power of the Holy Spirit" tactics. He's not impressed by entertainment.
I'm a contract musician having worked at SB and Crystal Catheral for years. From backstage, these venues are the same. Be honest...it's about Jesus = $$$.
The Christmas show on TV is mercenary PR.
My husband thinks SB does not present Christ correctly - it's about Rick's fame and $$$.
Meanwhile, we'd just returned from hearing Lessons & Carols (@CRC) enjoying peace & contentment from hearing about Jesus Christ rather than ourselves or the mire of the culture.
Kim Riddlebarger has earned respect from my husband by displaying integrity in hand-crafting his sermons and not wussing-out when it comes to teaching the real Jesus. (Who-knew an unbeliever would care?) He's been given no false-security; he's clear about what salvation is and is not. Evidence of my H's trust in Christ is subtly emerging!
I am grateful some pastors will not cower at the culture nor are intimidated by those "who just don't want to hear it"- and defend the Gospel as the only antidote to unbelief.
Bottom line, Richard, some people are not drinking Rick's koolaid.
> He's seen/heard IT ALL when it comes to marketing "the gospel" with "loud = excitement = the power of the Holy Spirit" tactics. He's not impressed by entertainment.
Me neither. I hate all that stuff, too. Loudness and excitement doesn't have to much to do with the HS, that's for sure.
> I'm a contract musician having worked at SB and Crystal Catheral for years. From backstage, these venues are the same.
Really? Who have you worked under at Saddleback and when did you play? I am intmately acquainted with Saddleback's musicians, being a leader in the music ministry. And, if you'll not identitify yourself, I would find it hard to believe your story since you are not even willing to signyour name. if you ARE willing to identify yourself, I'd be very interested to know what you found the same "backstage" at SB to be teh same as Cyrstal Cathedral. Because I'd be glad to put an end to it.
> Be honest...it's about Jesus = $$$.
Proof please?
> The Christmas show on TV is mercenary PR.
Proof please?
> My husband thinks SB does not present Christ correctly - it's about Rick's fame and $$$.
Proof please, especially in light what I shared about Saddleback/Warren finances in Part 2 above.
> Kim Riddlebarger has earned respect from my husband by displaying integrity in hand-crafting his sermons and not wussing-out when it comes to teaching the real Jesus.
I respect Kim as well. He absolutely holds forth God's Word and preaches truth, in HIS way, that works for him, given his mind, heart, personality, and background -- I only wish he would show the same grace to others who are holding out God's Word and sharing the Gospel to save the lost using other terms.
> I am grateful some pastors will not cower at the culture nor are intimidated by those "who just don't want to hear it"- and defend the Gospel as the only antidote to unbelief.
Uhm, yeah, well, I agree. We shouldn't cower before culture, but we should engage it using whatever terms help make the message of Christ more understandable to those ignorant of classic theological terms.
> Bottom line, Richard, some people are not drinking Rick's koolaid.
Koolaid? Ah, clever reference to Jim Jones poison. Fortunately, what he's dispensing is life-giving water form the Word of God. I see it every time I am at Saddleback, in the eyes of: ex-drug addicts, former adulterers, previously lost teens and twenty-something-year-olds, single Moms and Dads once with no hope, and so many others who now sevre teh Christ of the Bible, having accepted Jesus as their precious Lord and Savior by faith in his life, death, and resurrection.
R. Abanes
> 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]
Let's pick this apart a little, and if I may, use a few tactics used by Warren's critics. Where does the Bible say you are a terrible person? It seems you are a fairly nice person to me. The Bible actually says we are "sinners," which is something altogether different than being a terrible person. Hitler was a sinner and a terrible person. The kid who used to beat me up in high school was a sinner and a terrible person. However, my neighbor is a sinner and very nice/good person, if you ask me. And I have some family members who are also sinners, but also wonderful people. I hope you get my point. Moreover, what is the Greek word for 'scumbag"? It seems to me that you have just used a 21st century vernacular term that those in your circle might understand, but would be lost on others, particularly those who lived about 300 years ago. So are you being unbiblical? It seems so to me, if I were to care enough about that kind of specificity and want to push it, then the answer would be yes. But I know what you are trying to say, so I accept it. In reality, however, you've:
1) not expressed the biblical doctrine of sin to the satisfaction of a clear point, although some may indeed pick up on it;
2) added something to the biblical doctrine of man's sinfulness - i.e, that we are not JUST sinners, but also that we are all terrible people; and
3) used an unbliblical term --scumbag -- which has no scriptural equivalent in the Greek, and which stands in contrast to the true technical definition of a sinner (i.e., someone who has missed God's mark of righteousness, or who has transgressed God's Holy Law). Scumbag is usually defined as "A person regarded as despicable." This is not the biblical definition of what we all are. And it is certainly NOT the Gospel, which is what you said. It is a characteristic of humans, who are in need of the Gospel, which technically speaking, is the life, death, and resurretion of Jesus -- not that we are scumbags.
But all of that silliness aside, I understand your point and I am with you. And if you were to listen to Warren with a less prejudiced ear, you would hear him time and again talk about all of us as sinners in need of Christ's forgiveness through faith in him and his death on the cross for the things we have done wrong. I have quoted him saying such things over and over again, yet nobody seems to listen. Critics would rather find one quote form him where he doesn't say it perfectly to them, then send that quote all around the internet. Odd.
Furthermore, listen to the language you used: righteousness . . . imputed . . . my account . . . pardon. My goodness, why not just go ahead and throw "forensic act" in there? Do you seriously think that this kind of evangelism is going to work with some average Orange County mom trying to get her kids to soccer, or with a twenty-something-year-old who is plastered with tattoos, or with a homosexual who has spent all his life in dance classes at the Royal Ballet Academy? We've been preaching to the choir for so long, history/culture has passed us all up and we can't even communicate with the outside world any longer. We do, however, sound awfully good and doctrinally perfect to each other. Hmm, not quite sure that this was what Jesus had on his mind when he said go out into all the world and preach the gospel. What I am talking about here is simply taking the gospel and making it understandable in terms that people today can understand and relate to.
Part of the problem I have found with unbelievers these days is that they are so burned out on what they THINK Christianity is all about (complete with all the Christian-eze speak), that witnessing to them now presents new challenges. All they have to hear are some of those Christian buzz words that bring up images in their mind of past experiences or of things they've heard - and WHAM! - the walls go up in them and you might as well say, cya later. But if you use fresh words to communicate the same truth, you can get utterly different results. This isn't changing the mesage, it's changing the method. Everything you've articulated in your sentence is preached at Saddleback - people get the message. But because it is not communicated in "traditional words," everyone calls it heresy. And that's a big mistake.
Also, I have to say that what you articulated above is really only one facet of the salvific experience. As a result of accepting Christ, we find joy, peace, hope, a reason to live, courage to persevere in trials, a purpose to live (i.e., to serve God), and an eternal perspective on life/death, etc. etc. etc. Warren talks about these things A LOT because, tbh, they're not talked about enough in churches. People who have no hope need to know that they can find hope in Christ. People who have no reason to live need to know that in Christ they do have a reason to live. People who have no purpose in life, need to understand that ONLY in Christ will they EVER find true purpose and meaning -- and it's all rooted and grounded in Christ as one's Savior and Lord. That is biblical. That is Good News, indeed. That is part of the wider Gospel message, which tells us primarily that that Christ lived, died, and rose again from the dead on our behalf.
> Frankly for RW to say we need a Reformation not of [Creeds], but of [deeds] 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.
Here is a word very important to apologists -- context. Do you know the context in which Warren used this phrase? It is in reference to the destructive nature of sectarianism/denominationalism and doctrinal rigidity that in many places has overshadowed the simply message of the Gospel that should unite all Christians in one faith. He is NOT saying creeds, or sound doctrine is not important. Saddleback teaches a Systematic Theology course, for goodness sake. What he is saying is that when it comes to doctrine, what is important are the essential doctrines that relate directly to the identification of God, and our relationship through faith to him. I suggest the three earliest creeds - Apostolic, Athanasian, and Calcedonian. As for denominational distinctions, go buy a set of diffrent commentaries - one by a Lutheran, one by a Presbyterian, one by a Baptist, and one by a Roman Catholic. See any differences? These differences are "acceptable withing the pale of orthodoxy," as Hank Hanegraaff might say at the Christian Research Institute. or are you saying that only those in Reformed Churches are Christian? Or are you saying that only Lutherans are Christians? How about Presbyterians? Will no baptists be in heaven? No Calvary Chapelites? How about methodists and pentecostals?
> It is "try harder", "do more", "live right" etc.
No. Incorrect. Please provide quotes that establish this as Warren's teaching. What he actually says is that once you are saved by grace through faith, God will empower you to live differently, live righteously, and live as a servant of others rather than a servant of the self. And it is all God's doing. It is His Holy Spirit working in and through us to love, care for, and witness to the unbelieving world, while at the same time serving fellow believers in the church.
______________
TO ALAN - - - -
> What this boils down to is a distrust in the Holy Spirit and a distrust in God-ordained Biblical categories. If no pagan was offended by his message (if so where are they?), then there was no offense of the cross in Warren's message.
1. Pagans have to first understand the message to be offended by it. 2. Your not offended by the message if you're called -- you're converted, even though you were formerly pagan. So, all of those unbelievers who love Rick's message and come to Christ, are in reality called by God anyway, so it is understandable why they would not be offended by the message to begin with, they are called by God. 3. Pagans, if they get offended by the message, should be offended by the MESSAGE - not the message-bearer or the way the message is delivered. 4. Scriptures say pagans will be offended, not ALL pagans must be offended ALL the time as proof of the gospel being preached to them. I know plenty of "pagans" who have heard the straight-up, un-varnished, Gospel presentation given in the way Kim describes as the proper way to give it, and they are not particularly offended, they're just unmoved and think it's great for those who want to embrace it -- so was that not the real Gospel?
> What a sad opportunity missed for Christ to be exalted in the proclamation of the Incarnation and the necessity of the Cross.
He was indeed exalted - at least that's what I witnessed during the services and in the words of those who heard the messsage.
> As it is said once again, what you win them with is what you win them to.
Fine. Rick Warren used this passage to win them at Christmas: "God makes you alive with Christ when he forgives all your failures and sins. he did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the laws God established. He took those charges away by nailing them to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14).
> p.s. Whenever I hear Warren talk down to his audience as if they are little kids, I just cringe.
I'm glad that you are so intellectually advanced. And I rejoice in your ability to plumb the deeper truths and intricacies of our faith and scripture. I trust you have at least one concordance, maybe a few Greek study bibles, several books on Systematic Theology (one my favorites is by Louis Berkhof) and assorted commentaries (for the OT, I recommend Keil and Delitzsch). But the truth is that many of the non-Christians and new believers who attend Saddleback need to be spoken to the way Rick speaks to them in order to grasp some essential truths of scripture. They rejoice and grow in the grace and knowledge of God, and demonstrate their relationship to Him by unending works of service and desire to learn more. To hear you talk about them so disparagingly, and refer so dismissivley to the messages that have helped them, would literally break their hearts. It's hard enough for me to hear. I would think that you'd be rejoicing over those who once did not know Christ, but now walk with him in newness of life.
______________
TO DOUGLAS - Again - - - -
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.
You are Reformed. Enough said. Debate this issue with the guys over at Dallas, or over at some nearby Calavry Chapel. It's a battle that's been raging for hundreds of years. I'm not going to get into it again.
______________
TO Richard - - - -
> When you say that we fight unnecessarily over words and semantics, how can you really value the Word which brings eternal life?
Read above.
> Doesn't our salvation have some type of objective content which is communicated to us in words?
Yes. Check out the Apostolic, Athanasian, and Calcedonian Creeds. That's a good place to start. You might also want to order material on the essentials of the faith by the Christian Research Institute. I also recommend Rob Bowman's excellent book, "Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment" (1992).
> And you say words don't matter that much?
No, I said some words don't matter that much.
> And soteriology doesn't matter all that much either--it's all good, whether you adhere to a Reformed or Baptist soteriology?
You are seeking to draw me into another argument over sectarian/denominational specifics. I won't argue over these things. Sorry, there were no Baptists, or Calvinists, or Lutherans in Jesus's day. No Roman Catholics either. Yet somehow a whole bunch of people got saved. Interesting.
> Are you hearing what you are saying here?
Yes. very clearly. I am preaching Christ crucified -- Jesus, the Second person of the Holy Trinity, who became man, suffered, died, was buried, and on the third day rose again in fulfillment of the scripture, so that those of us who by faith accept his sacrifice might be saved as a free gift of grace, and thereby mercifully delivered from eternal separation from God -- i.e., hell, if you want the word for it.
> You know, you go on to say that our church must adapt to its culture--I wonder how much your theology has catered to a culture which has relativized some pretty precious truths here.
Really? Read what I have just written. You tell me. How much of my theology "has catered" to my trivializing culture. I would say, none of it.
_____________
I bid you all peace in Him who saved us,
R. Abanes
Obviously, you have way too much invested emotionally in Rick Warren and his message to be objective about these things. Why is it your life's mission to defend Warren regarding a comment I made about him?
Remember, I too preach to non-Christians in Orange County and God is granting me the privilege of baptizing a new Christian believer on Sunday. So don't tell me that people don't understand biblical language when you preach it to them.
Mulligan is not a biblical term and using it undermines the New Testament concept of forgiveness, namely the agony and suffering of Jesus for me and in my place.
Since this is my blog, I'm putting an end to this by making one final comment--especially in light of the comment you made above that I am "graceless." I believe that there are many ways to preach the biblical gospel. But there is only one biblical gospel, and it never came out of Warren's mouth on Christmas Eve.
That is the issue and you still have not gotten the point.
Thank you for taking the time to interact w/ my critique, evaluation of Rick Warren and the PDL.
Richard, I have read your critique of my statements, and it has caused me to think more that I need to be fair and love my neighbor - in this case Rick Warren.
You are correct that context is king, and I need to be careful to only be quoting someone in the context of how they employed their words. Thank you.
I certainly realize there are actual believers in other theological camps and I am sorry if I communicated otherwise.
RW uses "mulligan" and you defend it. I employ the use of "scumbag" and you severely criticize it, while telling me we need to speak a language our audience will understand? Yes, I am a scum bag, and so is everyone else out there, and if they won't accept it, then perhaps that is more about rebelling against God's revelation revealing we are "terrible" sinners.
Yes, "terrible". Richard, frankly, I am worried about you in the fact that you made issue of my use of "terrible sinner". Have you not read Romans 3:10ff? Context? Jew and Gentile alike are so bad we don't seek God, are liars, self-centered etc. etc. Yes, "terrible" sinners. You make Hitler the example to which good sinners [comparatively thinking] can feel better about themselves? Come on Richard, how about just reading the Law of God, and compare your own actions in the last 24 hours? Perhaps you don't do that enough? If you did, I sincerely don't think you'd take issue w/ "terrible sinner".
As for modern audience not understanding imputed to my account? Oh come on Richard. I can't explain that w/ use of a bank account where ones account is credited from an outside source w/ $ 1 Mil? I didn't earn it, work for it, deserve it, but it is now on my account.
Frankly, I don't know an adult w/ an IQ of 90 that would not understand crediting an account of another as a gift.
Richard, I am sincere in trying to hear your evaluation, and I hope you will take it to heart that you need to do the same, especially your understanding of the sinfulness of humanity as explained in Romans 3 and that righteousness that came from another and is provided to the church via Christ.
Thank you.
First, I actually did appreciate your post very very much.
Second, regarding, "I employ the use of 'scumbag' and you severely criticize it, while telling me we need to speak a language our audience will understand?" I actually wasn't critcizing it in all honesty, I was only doing so for the sake of argument - to show that most of us, if not all of us, habitually use more modern words to try to communicate our theological thoughts/views. That's all. It's fine for you to use the word scumbag, if that communicates to you and others, a sinner who is dead in their sins.
As for my reply to the whole "terrible" issue, I fear that you have not grasped what I was trying to say. If we are talking on a spiritual/theological level, okay, sure, I see your point. But these types of words when used casually in conversation with some unbelievers impart a different connotation. or are you actually saying that anyone you meet who is NOT a Christian is a terrible person? (I do not mean on a theological/spiritual level). It is one thing to say we are all sinners in need of God's grace and forgiveness because we all do tihngs wrong. It is another thing to say that everyone is a "terrible" person - which says something utterly different to unbelevers (and top me, to be honest). Do you tell your littel child from the outset that they are a scumbag, worthless, firty, filthy, piece of trash before God's eyes and yours? I owuld think. That kind of lesson will produce some seriously negative results in that child's concept of self. There needs to be balance and care in explaining our standing before God, incorporating not just our sinfulness, but our worth as human beings created in God's image.
I wish so much that we could go to some Pub (ala Lewis, Tolkien, and others) and talk this out over a good Guinness. perhaps teh intricacies of what we each are seeking to communicate is too fine to make sense in this type of forum.
And regarding some of these theological issues being understood, my friend, I can only tell you what I experience on a weekly basis with so many people I minister to and share the gospel with, and counsel. Sad to say, some of these concepts need to be said another way than the age-old, technical language of Chambers, Spurgeon, and dare I say Luther.
Anyway, my thought, Kim, is that perhaps a bunch of us can come together some night at the nearest Pub and hold a discussion over some of the best brew in town. It was good enough ofr the Inklings -- should be good enough for us. We could face this all as brothers trying to serve the One who saved us all by His glorious grace.
I leave it to you, Kim, whether or not to even allow this post, understading our previous agreement, but seeing that perhaps you have opened up this whole discussion again - seemingly.
One in Christ,
R. Abanes
Interesting. I used to work part time at one near WTS in the 90s. Only about 15% of sales were books. About 50% was music and the rest bibles, church supplies, and miscellaneous crap (pardon my hebrew).
By the end I could hardly stand it. A ton of people came in wanting TD Jakes or that one about somebody who allegedly died and saw hell and came back. I was trying to push John Piper and so forth and a lot of folks would take recommendations, but most wanted what they wanted. Benny Hinn was beloved.
Nice you got out. I'd work at WTS or Banner of Truth, but don't think I could stand another typical Christian bookstore.
http://www.extremetheology.com/2007/12/warrens-mulliga.html