Rick Warren represents us?

[Izdaari Eristikon]

And for what it's worth, I thought Warren did a very good and very fair job of interviewing both candidates. I didn't see that he favored one over the other at all.

I thought Obama and McCain both gave strong performances, though McCain's was stronger, and also closer to my views.

 

[ahiggs]

Rick Warren represents a moderate wing of evangelicalism, which is not IMHO a bad thing, but he is a working pastor, not a theologian, and not even a pastor whose central focus is theology. I haven't read any of his work yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if his theology were less than perfectly sound. He could probably help you understand his branch of evangelicalism, but he wouldn't be much help with the more conservative wing of it.

OTOH, MacArthur isn't so much a conservative as a Calvinist cessationist fundamentalist, so while he might be worth reading, he wouldn't give you the most balanced perspective either. Spurgeon is a classic, but he died in 1892, so there are definite limits on how much light he could shed on today's evangelical movement.

I would think Alister McGrath or Millard Erickson would be more to the center of modern evangelical theology, and thus more to the point. For a Pentecostal perspective, I'd suggest Stanley M. Horton.

you are probably right i just like macarthur and i really like sprugeon!! i also like alister beg and paul washer...don't know if you have ever listened to paul. but here is a link to some of his sermons.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...urrSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Paul^Washer

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

you are probably right i just like macarthur and i really like sprugeon!! i also like alister beg and paul washer...don't know if you have ever listened to paul. but here is a link to some of his sermons.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...urrSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Paul^Washer

Thanks for the link!

My classic favorite is C.S. Lewis, and my current favorite is N.T. Wright. I must be a closet Anglican!

(I've been called a closet Lutheran too. Actually, I have strong and open sympathies for both traditions so there's nothing closet about it. I just happen to belong to a different church... and I love my AG church... but if I should move, or if my church turned all weird, my next one could well be Anglican or Lutheran.)

 

[ahiggs]

Thanks for the link!

no problem, look around that sight there are sermans from just about anyone you can think of

My classic favorite is C.S. Lewis, and my current favorite is N.T. Wright. I must be a closet Anglican!

(I've been called a closet Lutheran too. Actually, I have strong and open sympathies for both traditions so there's nothing closet about it. I just happen to belong to a different church... and I love my AG church... but if I should move, or if my church turned all weird, my next one could well be Anglican or Lutheran.)

i am not sure how i would label myself? kind of eclctic. probably a combination between AG, lutheran and messianic jew

 

[Nadiine]

What that all boils down to is that McLaren is a liberal... and he is, both theologically and politically. But still, I find some good insights in his books, and I enjoy reading him, though I don't agree with his liberal views.

But I don't see anything wrong with working with people of other faiths on specific issues that we can agree on. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them on anything else.

=) hi again

Well you're free to read & get info from anyone you want Izdaari and you aren't exactly anti liberal either, so I wouldn't expect that you'de shut anyone out.

All I can speak for is myself. I stay completely away from some types & refuse to get any of my spiritual counsel from people claiming Christ who are operating in ways against scripture and introducing things that will harm people.

As I see it, Satan doesn't use clubs to hit people over the head in many cases, he uses a clever, subtle approach mingling just enough truth with falsity.
He did it with Eve in the garden and with Jesus at His temptation.

Things look great superficially, but when you look deeper into them, they violate scripture principles and in fact, I think they fit the scripture teachings that I believe are end times signs.

Once doctrine is pushed aside (which is what alot of this group is attempting to do in order to usher in "living principles" instead --- ie. Osteen & Oprah 3:16)
the people are open for anything else in God's name after they're primed.

When I see signs like that, I don't read their materials or listen to their teachings or have any interest in trying to work with them on anything.
I take the "beware of wolves" approach and run away instead of walking towards them to find ways to unite with them where we can.

To me, it's compromise and appears like I'm spiritually in support of them (publically) and it goes against my conscience. I can't find any middle ground where this stuff is concerned - I fully separate.

I guess in many people's eyes that's meanspirited and evil - but truth is more important to me than what people think or say. I guess it's just a place I've drawn as a line in the sand and I can't cross over it with any good conscience.

 

[Nadiine]

And for what it's worth, I thought Warren did a very good and very fair job of interviewing both candidates. I didn't see that he favored one over the other at all.

I thought Obama and McCain both gave strong performances, though McCain's was stronger, and also closer to my views.

Warren did just fine on it - but imho it was more secular in nature just to ask more esoteric questions to extract other types of info from the candidates that you wouldn't otherwise get in regular political debates.

He did just fine... but so would any interviewer other than maybe Fred Phelps lol
(oh I could just see that)

 

[JCFantasy23]

Somehow he's set himself as the face of evangelical Christianity~a face to represent the rest of us, maybe he's picked up Falwell's mantle--it sure wasn't passed to him..

Hmm. Well if that's the case it doesn't seem quite fair that he is a representative somehow, especially without anyone else having the choice of it.

 

[Nadiine]

Hmm. Well if that's the case it doesn't seem quite fair that he is a representative somehow, especially without anyone else having the choice of it.

I often wonder why the Charles Stanley's of the Christian community aren't given more prominance? & John MacArthur's, etc.

& then if you notice when news networks do spiritual interviews, they pick the Jerry Falwell's & others that are alot more controversial to represent us all. Rarely do they pick the Christian leaders that I believe are balanced and preaching the full gospel truth and have a decent, Godly reputation.
I don't think it's any accident.

I think the media crowns them the Christian's leader, not Warren himself - and they base it on size of church & make sure they aren't pushing the full doctrine of the Bible. (or are going against the current in some way).

 

[SallyNow]

I was planning to read "a purpose driven life" by Warren so I could better understand modern evangelicalism as compared to orthodox Catholicism. Now I am thinking that this might not be a good choice of books (but i know a lot of methodist and other protestants really like his book)

From what I've heard, it doesn't reperesent very conservative fundementalists, but it does go along with more internationally- accepted moderate evengelical views.

Many in America say it is unsound in its views, but many others say it is very sound.

Reading a book to take a look at a different view is rarely a bad thing!

But I'm a moderate/"liberal" Christian, so many in this forum will disagree with me.

 

[MrJim]

I was planning to read "a purpose driven life" by Warren so I could better understand modern evangelicalism as compared to orthodox Catholicism. Now I am thinking that this might not be a good choice of books (but i know a lot of methodist and other protestants really like his book)

You should read it and give us a review from a conservative Catholic POV ~ it would be interesting insight and it won't take ya long to read it..

 

[Nadiine]

You should read it and give us a review from a conservative Catholic POV ~ it would be interesting insight and it won't take ya long to read it..

I thought mine was best used as kindling in our fireplace last winter

 

[Nadiine]

From what I've heard, it doesn't reperesent very conservative fundementalists, but it does go along with more internationally- accepted moderate evengelical views.

Many in America say it is unsound in its views, but many others say it is very sound.

Reading a book to take a look at a different view is rarely a bad thing!

But I'm a moderate/"liberal" Christian, so many in this forum will disagree with me.

Actually, I saw moderate Christians complaining about it along with more conservative Christians maybe a year after the book came out - alot of people had issues with things.

At the time, I had just gotten it as a gift from someone and hadn't read it yet (not that I read much - reading puts me to sleep like a sedative lol).


I think it mostly depends on what you're looking for in a book. Not every single book "does it all" and covers everything. Even tho I'm deadset against Warren's new agenda that he's made public, and I won't advance "his kingdom" with one dime of my money, his book like any other won't be the end-all of what everyone needs, wants or is looking for.

Everyone will take issue with nearly everything a Christian or person claiming Christianity puts out.

 

[Zecryphon]

I often wonder why the Charles Stanley's of the Christian community aren't given more prominance? & John MacArthur's, etc.

& then if you notice when news networks do spiritual interviews, they pick the Jerry Falwell's & others that are alot more controversial to represent us all. Rarely do they pick the Christian leaders that I believe are balanced and preaching the full gospel truth and have a decent, Godly reputation.
I don't think it's any accident.

I think the media crowns them the Christian's leader, not Warren himself - and they base it on size of church & make sure they aren't pushing the full doctrine of the Bible. (or are going against the current in some way).

People like Charles Stanley and John MacArthur aren't given more exposure on tv, because they don't present the version of "Christianity" that the media likes. The media likes to put on two kinds of Christians. The first kind is the Christian who won't defend the faith and promotes a social gospel, like McLaren where what you do for your neighbor through social programs is more important than the gospel message of repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

The second type of Christian the media loves to play up is the "whack job" Christian like Pat Robertson, who every time he is on tv, calls for the death of a world leader or Jerry Falwell who spent much of his time blaming the sins of others for the bad things that happened to the U.S. like the 9/11 attacks and hurricane Katrina. If the media can get those kinds of Christians on their programs, people will watch, because people love to hate those kinds of Christians. It's not about honestly representing Christianity, it's about making Christianity into something it isn't, by presenting the extreme individuals of the faith.

 

[salida]

Why are you embarrassed that Rick Warren interviewed? I like Rick Warren and I'm glad he did this.

 

[Zecryphon]

I don't know that anyone is upset that Rick Warren did the interview. I saw most of it and thought he did okay. I think people are upset because it appears that Rick Warren speaks for conservative Christians. He doesn't. He speaks for modern Pop-Evangelical Christians, where it's all about what you do and if you're a pastor, the size of your church. In short, Warren preaches the Christian instead of the Christ.

 

[MrJim]

Amen & reps for the Lutheran dude

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I find this kinda embarassing that somehow Rick Warren is representing conservative Christians & conservatives in general How did this happen?

Who else is going to do it? Someone from TBN? Or a boring traditional denomination too set in their ways to speak to the masses of 2008?

Is that what you would want?

He got Obama to do his double speak and that was a good thing. Waren showed why, in the case of Obama, there are back pews.

What Warren did was to show why Christians should leave Obama far behind, and also realize that McCain is the best choice there is at a time like this in history.

At least McCain doesn't make noise like he is speaking fo Christians as a whole. Obama, on his two sides of his mouth religiosity/secularism, showed that Warren did the body of Christ well.

 

[Nadiine]

Who else is going to do it? Someone from TBN? Or a boring traditional denomination too set in their ways to speak to the masses of 2008?

Is that what you would want?

He got Obama to do his double speak and that was a good thing. Waren showed why, in the case of Obama, there are back pews.

What Warren did was to show why Christians should leave Obama far behind, and also realize that McCain is the best choice there is at a time like this in history.

At least McCain doesn't make noise like he is speaking fo Christians as a whole. Obama, on his two sides of his mouth religiosity/secularism, showed that Warren did the body of Christ well.

First off, I notice your radical picks - as if NO good leaders exist... they're all over the Christian community & they don't have to be from TBN. & boring to whom? What's boring to 1 person isn't boring to me & vice versa.

But this isn't any "good reason" in the bigger picture. God will put in who God will put in....

What's important are the SPIRITUAL MESSAGES & TEACHINGS. I can find any preacher in the Christian realm & find something good about them, it doesn't make them a good representative OF GOD much less us.

When people take the majority of focus OFF of doctrine and onto self, the world & experiencial issues, you have a Shepherd not feeding the flock - worse, being the example to all other churches.

Just becuz one good thing might happen, doesn't mean he's a good role model or representative when I can show you webpages of problematic things coming out of him in the Spiritual issues where it really matters.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

First off, I notice your radical picks - as if NO good leaders exist... they're all over the Christian community & they don't have to be from TBN. & boring to whom? What's boring to 1 person isn't boring to me & vice versa.

I'm just doing Jesus math and gardening.

What's boring to a lot of people is the reason a lot of people are not going to organ-based and structured Church service programs. What was style 100-plus years ago may not work in today's world. Paul was so boring a preacher at one time, that one of listeners got killed nodding off. Literally nodding off. But it sure looks like he (Paul) was willing to become all things to all people. He didn't go to his execution because he only had a Church group of ten at a home-based Bible study. Paul was th original mega-Church pastor. Or at least that was his goal. I'm thinking he did well. I'm thinking that Greek people did not look forward to Hebrew songs and service order. Paul appears to have adapted the immutable truth of scripture to the pop culture interests. A Les Paul and a Marshall stack does not alter the Gospel, nor does Hip-Hop delivery.

But this isn't any "good reason" in the bigger picture. God will put in who God will put in....

God put some very mean and un-Godly leaders over His people. We will need to seek God intensely if Obama/Illinois-style authoritarianism overtakes America. I've been to praise and worship festivals in Illinois and California, and the state with a Church on every street corner was just about asleep, and the West Coasters, where Christianity is all but illegal, were on fire, boldly proclaiming the Gospel.

What's important are the SPIRITUAL MESSAGES & TEACHINGS.

I'm not big into Warren, as I'm concerned with other aspects of health for the brethren, but he seems to be putting the money of his flock where his mouth is and the mouths of the destitute. Both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did that too, it was when they spoke Apostolic truth mixed with politics that the world turned on them. Warren has not done his history homework it appears.

I can find any preacher in the Christian realm & find something good about them, it doesn't make them a good representative OF GOD much less us.

Christ Jesus represents God, because he is God. The Apostles made no mistake on that. Does Warren preach another God or Gospel?

When people take the majority of focus OFF of doctrine and onto self, the world & experiencial issues, you have a Shepherd not feeding the flock - worse, being the example to all other churches.

Does Rick Warren do that? Isn't Christian truth supposed to be successful? I don't mean word of faith successful, I mean gathering in people successful. Isn't the goal of the Gospel a mega-Church?

Just becuz one good thing might happen, doesn't mean he's a good role model or representative when I can show you webpages of problematic things coming out of him in the Spiritual issues where it really matters.

Warren needs prayer. And he needs to be tested on all things. No one in Christian life (reality) is more important than anyone else.

Look what happened to most of the Apostles, and they stayed the course. Warren, and any other Christian in the media spotlight is in danger every second of every day.

/////

The Basset Hound doing well?

 

[MrJim]

Who else is going to do it?

Why does it need to be done? It treats the church just as it treats the VFW, the Unions, the Sierra Club~~another voting bloc to attempt to hustle some line to snag votes. The Body of Christ is not some demographic to be badgered or plied into getting support...or maybe it is little more than that