So Much for Being Nice About Rick Warren

I've posted on Rick Warren several times over the past few years, often with criticism, but at times I have tried to point out areas where it is appropriate to commend him.  Bloggers always run a risk when they post about Rick Warren.  If you criticize him there are near-sycophants who can spin anything off and have him come out smelling like a rose.  If you praise him there are many who can find a cloud in any silver lining and will use anything as an opportunity to hammer him.

Trying to walk a middle road is tough when it comes to Warren.

Lately I have posted a few things of a complimentary nature.  This is partly out of theological conviction.  Though I have no desire to use the PDL stuff and really wouldn't recommend it, I can accept the fact that he is a brother whom I disagree with.  As I mentioned in this post I believe in total depravity, not utter depravity.   In other words, though sin taints everything we do, no one is pure, unmitigated evil.  When I disagree with someone I am pretty satisfied to say "I think this person is wrong," without resorting to name-calling, condemnation or casting other aspersions on their character.  And I do believe there is much in Warren that is praiseworthy.

Having said that, today I came across some things that I believe are particularly egregious.

As many of you probably know, Warren has had some interaction with the Synagogue 3000 Network, an organization concerned with revitalizing Jewish life. 

That, in and of itself is not a problem, at least in my opinion.  I think it is incumbent on us to be good neighbors and this could even include providing some assistance to members of other religions.  We may even find an occasion to share general revelation style insights with each other.  I know that in seminary, one of our professors would invite clergy from other religions to speak to a pastoral theology class just to help us learn how to interact with other religious clergy in the public sphere.  Don't worry folks, there was no hint of proselytism or indoctrination here. 

I can remember being greatly impressed by the Jewish rabbi's words about teaching children and took some things away from that.  Similarly, the Islamic clergyman told of how he had memorized a large part of the Koran and I was properly convicted and shamed for my lack of knowledge of my own Scriptures.

I offer that to say that I think we ought to be careful before we jump in too quickly to criticize Warren just for talking to these Jewish friends.  But we can and  should analyze the content of these conversations.

On the S3K website you can download (registration required) video clips of some of Warren's interaction with these Jewish leaders.  In the videos he is very winsome and personable, and he has a killer Hawaiian shirt that I definitely am coveting.  Yet he is sharing church growth principles with these Jewish leaders on how to improve their congregational life.

My question is this - is there any biblical warrant for assisting members of other religions in improving their worship?  Before you write that off as a no-brainer, easy no, please think about a couple of things.

If you are pastoring a church and a rabbi (or Imam) comes by with the architect who built your facility because said Rabbi is thinking about hiring this architect to build his facility, would you give him a tour of your facility?  I would hope so, it would be the neighborly thing to do, yet this would definitely help improve his worship.

Or, suppose you live in the Gulf region and you are good friends with your Jewish neighbor whose synagogue on the next block was destroyed.  If that neighbor asked you to come help with cleanup or something like that, would you do it?  I hope so.  Even though you may be an instrument helping worship restart or continue there, it seems to me that this would be a wonderful example of loving your neighbor.

So, if Warren shares some general revelation insights on congregational life with a rabbi, that in and of itself is not worth having a meltdown over.  I will say that I don't think I could participate in such a forum, but I am not prepared to throw the book at him for that. 

But I think we can throw the book at a Christian leader who builds a relationship with members of another religion with no intention of sharing the gospel with them.  In the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, there is an article called "Jesus' Man has a Plan," which speak of Warren's work with the Jewish community.  Warren recently attended and spoke at a Friday night Shabbat service.  I realize I weary my readers with all of the qualifications I make on these things, but let me say that attending a worship service of another religion does not strike me as forbidden.  I wouldn't have a problem with going to a synagogue or a mosque as an observer.  I would simply want to let the officiating clergy know I was an observer and could not be a participant.  However, participation in such a service would be out of bounds.  The article says this:

Warren spoke at Sinai as part of the Synagogue 3000 program, which aims to revitalize Jewish worship.

Indeed, can a Christian take part in an activity designed to revitalize Jewish worship?  I would say yes, under one condition - sharing the gospel.  The apostle Paul had a burning passion for the conversion of his fellow Jews and would share the gospel with them in any situation.  But, Warren didn't share the gospel.

The other secret to his success is his passion for God and Jesus. Warren managed to speak for the entire evening without once mentioning Jesus — a testament to his savvy message-tailoring. But make no mistake, the driving purpose of an evangelical church is to evangelize, and it is Warren’s devotion to spreading the words of the Christian Bible that drive his ministry.

Now again, with my infernal qualifications let me give credit where credit is due - somehow, some way, Warren has been able to convey to this Jewish writer of the article that his passion is for Jesus.  Kudos to Rick for that.  Yet to speak in a worship service for a non-Christian religion and not speak of Jesus is beyond the bounds of acceptability. 

And apparently, he is not planning to speak of Jesus to these folks:

Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters.

Since this is not a direct quote from Warren, only a report, I would be delighted if someone more in the know could tell us that this is not true.  Yet, failing that, I fail to see how Warren can plan substantive interaction with Jewish leaders without seeking to "convert" them.

I had an "aha!" moment about Warren a few years ago.  I had read the article that Modern Reformation did with him where he came out sound plausibly like a calvinist.  A few months after that I was in Southern California and had the good providence to be able to attend an evening service at his church.  During the sermon he uttered those classic words "God is a gentleman and will never violate our free will."  This is a classical arminian statement.

Hearing this you could assume that Warren is either 1) an inconsistent calvinist, 2) an inconsistent arminian, 3) a liar, 4) a sloppy theologian, 5) all of the above, or 6) none of the above.

I tend to go with #6 because I think there is something more significant in play here.  He may be a sloppy theologian but he is perfectly consistent with his ministry philosophy that the audience dictates the message.  If you are familiar with his material in The Purpose Driven Church, you will know that he teaches that there are five audiences to which we must minister - community, crowd, congregation, committed and core.  He says we must tailor the message to the audience.

There is a good deal of wisdom in this.  I can use big words with my core people that I would never use with the community and there are things I can talk about with my core that I wouldn't talk about with the community. 

But the message would have to remain consistent across the board.  My "aha!" that Sunday night in SoCal was to realize that Warren is actually very consistent with his own ministry philosophy - he savvily tailored one message to the calvinists at Modern Reformation and savvily tailored a different message to the folks back home at his church.  And in this case he has used his savvy to tailor a Jesus-free message to the Jews.

It seems to me that the purpose driven model and the five audiences could be a wonderful tool, and a great servant of ministry.  But it seems to me that this has become the controlling paradigm for his ministry and that purpose driven has replaced gospel driven.

I do want to conclude by saying that I am not going on an anti-Warren crusade here and won't be watching him for any false move.  Nor do I think he is going to hell.  Nor will I deny that he may have some good common grace insights to share with the rest of us. I also want to be clear that in my comments about Jews above I referred to them with terms like "friends" and "neighbors," intentionally to show the attitude we ought to have toward them.

Like Paul, we can and should love our Jewish neighbors, serve our Jewish neighbors and there is even a place for becoming like our Jewish neighbors in some way.  But when we become like them, we must become like them to win them. In this case, Warren is becoming a Jew to the Jews with no obvious intention of winning them.

 

It used to be that when Tim Challies would post a critique of Warren, Richard Abanes would show up to defend him.  This is a case where Richard or someone needs to show up somewhere and show us all that this is a big misunderstanding, that he was misquoted, that there is something going on behind the scenes where he is actively sharing the gospel, or something like that. 

Failing that, the criticism is fair that Warren is a minister of the gospel ministering without the gospel.

Comments

[cavman]

Like you, I try to walk that line, living in the tension, when it comes to Warren. I probably give him more slack than you (which is probably shocking to anyone who knows both of us since you are a far kinder, gentler man). But I think you hit the nail on the head.
Rather than speak the same message differently (contextualizing the one Gospel), it certainly sounds like he's letting his audience dictate his theology. That's a different story.
All very strange.

[Chris Roberts]

{humor}
I digested what you said and sifted through the disclaimers and caveats and emerged with the following:

"Rick Warren is a cool guy who does a lot of good stuff but needs to be more direct with the gospel and not so focused on purpose methods. Jews are cool too."
{/humor}

[Keith Plummer]

I'm not sure the analogies of recommending an architect and assisting a congregation of another faith rebuild after a fire are fitting here. As I see it, a better illustration would be the local imam or rabbi asking you, a Christian minister, for counsel as to how he can increase the size and reach of his congregation's ministry. This is why Warren was sought - as a consultant whose techniques have proven "effective." While I have no reservations with the examples you gave of being a loving neighbor, I see a world of difference when called upon to advise non-Christian religions how to propagate their message.

When I read the Jewish Journal piece and viewed the series of videos from Synagogue 3000, I wondered whether Warren would accept an invitation to a mosque by Muslim leaders desirous of reaching more people. If not, why?

It has been a few weeks since I watched the videos but if memory serves me correctly, Warren did make one reference to Christ in his conversation with the synagogue leaders (the video titled "Doubt and Belief") and this was a fleeting reference to an account from one of the gospels to illustrate a point he was making. This he prefaced by asking pardon for telling a "Christian story."

When I learned that Warren would be speaking at Temple Sinai, I contacted them asking if recordings of Warren's talk would be available for purchase but they didn't respond. The article in the Jewish Journal states at the bottom that they are planning to make an audio file of Warren's sermon available at their site in the near future.

Perhaps Warren views himself as paving the way for future presentations of the gospel but like you, I'm troubled that he has apparently offered his assistance with no intention to clearly proclaim the message of the cross.

As for an apologist, I don't know what became of Richard Abanes but I'm curious about what Andrew Jackson of SmartChristian thinks about the matter.

[John]

It seems to me your statement that Warren is "beyond the bounds of acceptability" is assuming some things. For one, the story says he didn't mention Jesus but that in itself is not outside the bounds of scripture. Paul did not name Jesus on Mars Hill. He spoke about Jesus only indirectly as "a man whom [God] has appointed..."

I think what you're overlooking here is the context. Paul spoke to people on Mars Hill who had no idea who he was or what God he was preaching. Warren, on the other hand is about as well-known as a pastor can be. Every single person in that room already knew that he was a) a believer and b) that his ministry was about Jesus. That name was on every mind in the hall before he even got up to speak.

I like the line attributed to Francis: "Bear witness at all times. If all else fails use words." In any case, without knowing what he actually said, I think it's wrong to assume he didn't use the opportunity to meet the people where they were and share a bit more about who God is from his own understanding.

I don't know about this specific group, but I know many Jews have a real wariness about Christians who are there to convert them. That's not to suggest we should abandon the effort, just that Jews in particular are going to require a lot of bridge building before they're ready to really listen to a pastor tell them about Jesus.

Again, I think Acts 17 is controlling here, but it's also common sense. Do you (or I) present non-Christian neighbors with the four spiritual laws the first time they invite us to their home? I don't because that would really weird them out. They already know I work for a church and I can tell that fact is on their minds whenever I'm around. I do not preach the gospel at every block party. I try to be a good neighbor. Then when someone has a need or a question, they'll know where to come. It's about building trust. This situation with Warren is no different in my mind.

[Broken Messenger]

David,

A fair and careful criticism indeed. It will be interesting to see if a resposne comes about.

Brad

[David Cho]

Great post.

This reminds me of the times when Calvary Chapel invites prominent figures from Israel to speak from the pulpit. They are not believers. Only the Word of God should be preached from the pulpit in our churches, period, and how a non-believer is allowed to have the floor is beyond me.

Likewise, you are spot on about attending a service of another religion as an observer, not a participant. Likewise, non-belivers can come to our service as observers and seekers inquirers, but not as parcipants. By definition, they cannot participate.

[Kathleen]

The following tells about how Rick Warren started his own church many years ago in his own words. They tell a lot:

Why don't we have church for people who hate church? And so I went out and for twelve weeks I went door to door, and I knocked on homes for about 12 weeks and just took an opinion poll. I had a survey with me. I just said, "My name is Rick Warren. I'm not here to sell you anything, I'm not here to convert you, I'm not here to witness to you. I just want to ask you three or four questions. Question number one: Are you an active member of a local church – of any kind of religion – synagogue, mosque, whatever?" If they said yes, I said, "Great, God bless you, keep going," and I politely excused myself and went to the next home.
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80

[Mike]

David:

I've never blogged about or (to my knowledge) commented about RW before (not thinking him to be my business and not having a flock to protect from any aberrant ideas he might have) but I'll try to make an intelligent observation here. I hope this doesn't turn into a long comment - I hate them and no one really reads them anyway.

Enough disclaimers?

It seems that, like many of us, RW has applied part of a passage but not the whole passage. I'm referring to 1 Cor 9.19-22. Here is what I think RW might be endeavoring to do:

" For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all . . .
"To the Jews I became as a Jew . . .
"to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law . . .
"to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ . . .
"To the weak I became weak . . .
"I have become all things to all men . . ." - NASB

The problem, obviously, is that RW has not followed through with the rest of the above verses. This is no small thing since the missing portions all use the word "that," indicating the purpose for his behavior (and his example to us). Here are the overlooked parts in the above verses which RW has not applied in the cases you have cited:

"so that I may win more"
"so that I might win Jews"
"so that I might win those who are under the Law"
"so that I might win those who are without law"
"that I might win the weak"
"so that I may by all means save some"

Paul lived a "purpose driven life," it is clear, and his purpose is explained by what follows the "that" in each of the above verses. To stop short is partial obedience; to stop short is partial disobedience. But thank God for His grace, or all of us would be in big trouble!

FWIW, Paul's address on Mars Hill was interrupted when he mentioned the resurrection, so we don't really know what he might have said. It is personally hard to believe that he would not have preached the gospel - including identifying the Savior by Name - had he been allowed to continue at that time. An argument from silence? Yes, but not an illogical conclusion given everything Paul did and said at other times and other places.

[Mike]

One more thing? (I'll try not to get on a roll here.)

John wrote,

"Do you (or I) present non-Christian neighbors with the four spiritual laws the first time they invite us to their home? I don't because that would really weird them out."

No, I don't. But if I were a world-reknown figure such as RW and invited to someone's home, I certainly would. In fact, it might weird them out - or harmfully comfort them or confuse them - if I didn't share the gospel with them (not the Four Spiritual Laws, perhaps, but an presentation appropriate to the audience). Might they be offended? Perhaps, but what should they expect from a highly visible "evangelical" pastor?

I would question, too, if the narrative from Ac 17 were "controlling" instead of 1 Cor 9.19-22. I feel more confident following didactic passages than narrative ones: although both are equally inspired, not all are to be followed as examples (e.g., Mt 27.5, Mt 26.19, Ac 15.39).

But I could be wrong and am open to correction.

[David Cho]

John, you wrote:
I do not preach the gospel at every block party. I try to be a good neighbor. Then when someone has a need or a question, they'll know where to come. It's about building trust. This situation with Warren is no different in my mind.

The gathering that Rick Warren went to wasn't exactly a block party, or Mars Hill, but a religious gathering. The huge difference is that a block party and Mars Hill were neutral grounds. Did Paul speak at a pagan temple?

That is where I draw the line.

[Richard Kindig]

I have a different take. If I were speaking to Jewish people as a Christian, (and I have had several such opportunities), I would recognize that there is a dispensational timeframe which makes Paul's single-minded devotion to Jewish confrontation no longer appropriate. In other words, if Paul were here today I do not believe he would follow the Jolly Blogger's rule ... but he wouldn't follow Rick W's example, either. He would tell the Jews that they have a separate and distinct destiny, a separate gospel, if you will. It is the good news that they are beloved for their father's sakes, and that though they have been rebuked in measure, the time for their restoration is clearly at hand. Already God has ended their diaspora, has sent the fishers and then the hunters of Jeremiah 16, has been calling them back to Eretz Israel. Soon, the fruitage of the Christian era will have been fully evaluated and rewards and chastisements dispensed. The ground will be cleared, and a new era will be inaugurated by the reign of Messiah, headquartered in a Jewish Jerusalem.

At that time, Jews will be the leaders oft he world -- they will discover their mistakes in identifying Jesus, but they won't be part of the high calling to which Christians have been called. Instead, they will be part of the thing that most of them have aspired to all along -- participation with Messiah on earth, as leaders and interpreters of God's commandments to the human race.

So I would not try to proselytize Jews into Christianity. There are some who are drawn to Jesus. But for most, centuries of persecution continue to make the Galileean too much for them to take. So instead they will get in step with the new era of worldwide peace and justice, when it is established, and then their eyes will open to who exactly Jesus was -- the savior of the whole world -- and then they will mourn for him whom they pierced. Not in despearation, though, but in thanks that God has been merciful to them, and brought great blessings and usefulensess to them.

Paul would not ram Jesus down their throats. He would acknowledge how God has worked with them, bringing them back to Israel after exactly 50 jubilee cycles of exile, and now he's preparing a feast of fat things for all people. And he would urge the Jews to become Olim and return to the Land.

I've written about this on my whyJesusDied.com website.

Thanks for raising the topic.

RIchard

[Mike]

Whoa! I feel compelled, as a dispensationalist, to say that Richard's curious understanding of dispensationalism, the gospel, and the spiritual future of Israel is quite distinct from that of most dispensationalists, whether progressive or not.

He wrote hypothetically of Paul,

"He would tell the Jews that they have a separate and distinct destiny, a separate gospel, if you will."

But Paul unequivocably said,

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" - Gal 1.8-9

There is one gospel, one way of salvation, in this dispensation and in every dispensation: by grace through faith in God based on the light given to us at our particular point in history (a reflection of progressive revelation), a salvation made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If Paul were alive today (despite being 2,000-years-old), I have no doubt that his message to the Jews would be to repent and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. He started out preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom (Ac 9.22) and ended preaching the same gospel of the Kingdom (Ac 28.30-31).

Nobody likes to be called "ultra" anything, but I think Richard's position is more reflective of an extreme form of dispensationlism than that which is taught at schools such as Dallas Theology Seminary or in any number of Bible churches around the world.

It is a dangerous thing to tamper with the gospel of salvation or to suggest that there is more than one gospel.

[Alex Chediak]

A great post, David. Certainly fair and balanced. I also read that Modern Reformation interview a few years ago and thought, "Man! This guy is theologically savvy! Why does everyone in the Reformed camp give him such a hard time!" Then I, too, had the good providence of visiting one of their twentysomethings/singles group activities. I was astounded at the shallowness of what was the message portion of what was presented as an "outreach" night.

I'm going to blog-link to your post. Thanks again.

[Jeremy Pierce]

What Warren said about free will is perfectly consistent with Calvinism, so there's no need to think of him as a sloppy theologian. He can say something that he would think the audience would agree with, perhaps in a way that he thinks they'd be more likely to agree with him on it, all the while not contradicting what he would say in another context in a different way because of a different audience.

As for the other issue, it may well be that he's working behind the scenes with the Jewish leaders and being more explicit there. He was certainly more explicit with the person who wrote the article, even if no direct quotes got in the article.

Now the Muslim and Jewish cases are clearly not parallel. Helping a Muslim expand their congregation's reach almost certainly involves helping them convert people who are not Muslims to Islam. Helping a Jewish rabbi expand a congregation's reach generally involves getting secular Jews to be more interested in attending services, which generally increases spiritual interest and might set them up more for appreciating the gospel rather than undermining it. At least that may be how Warren is thinking of it, even aside from the issue of possible behind-the-scenes evangelism of Jewish leadership.

Kathleen, I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but my guess would be that you think his actions show that he doesn't think active people in other religions need converting. His actions do not demonstrate that. They demonstrate that such people are not in his target group. He sees his target group as those who would not darken the door of any religious congregation. He has catered his ministry toward attracting such people, because they are an unreached group that he feels led toward focusing on. The apostles had a division of labor, so there isn't an inherent problem with Warren also having one. That doesn't mean he doesn't engage in pre-evangelism (as here) or even evangelism sometimes with those outside his target area. Paul certainly went outside his. But Warren does have a clearly defined target area. He was focusing on them when he started his ministry, and thus he wasn't wasting his time on something he wasn't as gifted in (reaching believers of other religions) or something that merely divides the body of Christ (sheep-stealing).

[Matthew]

Before we draw hard-and-fast rules about what religious events we can and can't participate in, I think it's worth remembering that Christ and the apostles taught in the synagogues.

I'm fairly certain, furthermore, that no Jewish person is going to see Rick Warren and wonder who he is or what religion he's representing.

As a Christian, furthermore, I don't think it's such a bad thing that the synagogues survive. The alternative, realistically, isn't that the de-synangogued Jews and unemployed rabbis are going to wonder now about converting to Christianity. They're just going to go on being lone Jews.

I think that Christians above all people should see the sanctifying benefit in Jews meeting together to hallow the Sabbath and pray for God's kingdom to come. It's not the Ultimate End, which is Christ, but it's certainly not a step away.

[pgepps]

Yeah, uh, Dave, I agree with your criticism. I probably wouldn't comment, but I want to join Mike in shouting "FOUL!" and red-carding (I'm thinking fencing, not soccer) Richard Kindig's comment.

That is the sort of deleterious claptrap that has given Dispensationalists a bad name that those of us who hold to insights gleaned from the past couple centuries' vigorous discussions of eschatology and prophecy are still trying to live down.

There is NO EXCUSE for failing to regard an adherent of Judaism who does not accept Christ as anyone but a sinner in need of a Saviour. There are historical reasons God has and will used the genetic seed, but the first, foremost, and the one through which all others pass is that the seed of Abraham is Christ Himself, through whom Jew and Gentile alike are ALONE saved.

"Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel to you than that which you have received, let him be accursed."

Shame on you, Richard. Repent and beg forgiveness of the God you have hidden from the lost!

Sincerely,
PGE

[Peter Kirk]

What makes you think that Rick Warren has no intention of preaching the gospel to these Jews and encouraging them to repent and accept Jesus as their Messiah and Lord? Yes, maybe he has not made his intention obvious. But then it would be rather counter-productive to walk into a synagogue and say "I want you all to become Christians"! The Jewish writer seems to recognise better than you do that "the driving purpose of an evangelical church is to evangelize, and it is Warren’s devotion to spreading the words of the Christian Bible that drive his ministry". But Warren realises that to be explicit about his intentions would be counter-productive. So, hopefully without actually denying any hope that his hearers will accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord, he is surely within his rights to avoid making this intention immediately obvious and explicit when doing so would not in fact serve to advance the gospel.

[Mike Young]

I'm glad I'm coming to this one late. I am no fan of the man who tickles the ears of his audience, even if he occasionally slips the truth in. Hey, even the stupidest of salesmen knows he has to give his customer some hint of what he wants.

And with respect to going to the meeting and preaching Jesus. I do think that is difficult ground and possibly unnecessary. When Christ dealt with his disciples, he dealt with them concerning their views of the Law and the Prophets. When he dealt with Nicodemus he dealt with him concerning his covenant views.

I do happen to have Jewish friends with whom I witness to on every occasion. And while I do occasionally discuss Jesus, I tend to focus on their complete lack of understanding of their own faith. I think the blessing passing from Isaac to Jacob is a great example of a flaw in their notion of a covenant via the physical seed of Abraham. And what about Ishmael?

There is enough evidence within that body of text to show them their religion is to be by faith. Perhaps then, they might be like Apollos and believe the prophecy of Ezekial and desire a new and clean heart.

[Jan McKenzie]

I hope you continue with this attitude toward theological discussions. Personally, I sometimes struggle to be fair, not giving the respect to others I would want for myself. Considering how many mistakes I've made, personally and theologically, I have to hold your position.

As to Warren, I am not a devotee simply because I spend my time and attention in a different way than I used to. In middle-age, after many years of theological reading, I prefer reading more of the Word than more about it. (Though I still succumb to certain theologians, proven through the years).

Warren, like many, may preach and teach Christ for many reasons, good or bad; some do so out of envy or greed, others out of love and devotion. Sooner or later, the seed will bear its moral fruit.

[david rosser]

http://godtalketc.blogspot.com/

[cavman]

When Jesus and the apostles taught in the synagogue, they preached the Messiah. This is why they eventually got booted from synagogues.
Many of the pro-Warren comments fail to make important distinctions. It isn't like he bumped into someone on the street, or was over their house for dinner. He addressed a group of rabbis. Francis would say this is one of the times to use words.
Warren's not perfect. Nor is he Satan. Why do people have to act like he'd never do anything wrong? If I could spell it, I'd say "masugenah".

[Jael]

Thank you for your careful analysis of Rick Warren. I have left Saddleback and am growing increasingly concerned at what is being preached there. While those of us who know the Bible can disagree, many are being led astray. You are totally correct that Purpose Driven has replaced the gospel. Because Rick can't preach the same thing to different groups, his words are becoming increasingly compartamentalized and odd.

[Ken Kopelson]

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ. First of all, by way of introduction, I'd like to say that I am an Israelite, raised as a Jew, and born-again at the age of 16. I am now 45, serving the risen Lord Jesus Christ for 29 years. I am now getting ready to go to a dangerous country in order to labor for revival and reformation.

Frankly, brothers and sisters, I find all this talk about a different gospel for Jews to be reprehensible and quite a travesty. There is only one gospel, and the fact is, over the last 2000 years many other gospels have been devised by men (the devil), and it is really a terrible thing. This dispensational lunacy is also a device of the devil. There is no plan B of God, and the Jews alone are not some special class of people.

I am sorry, but the gentile followers of Messiah have royally misunderstood the scriptures as they have attempted to understand them with the Greek mindset. They have greatly misunderstood and misrepresented Paul, taking him from his Jewish context and injecting him into the protestant dispensational mindset, which just doesn't exist in the scriptures.

Simply put, Israel was split into two houses after the reign of Solomon. The House of Ephraim, also called the House of Israel, was carried off into Assyria and then dispersed throughout every nation. They lost their identity and became intermixed with the gentiles, becoming gentiles themselves.

The other house, the House of Judah, was later sent into Bablyon and were allowed to maintain their identity as Israelites. Many of them later came out of Babylon and returned to the land of Israel. These are who we now know as Jews. These consist of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

It was prophesied by several prophets in the Old Testament that the House of Israel would be swallowed up by the gentile nations, and would lose their status as Israelites. However, this would not remain the case forever, because they would one day be reinstituted again and join the Jews (House of Judah) as the people of God. This process began to happen once Jesus came, and has continued ever since then. The gentiles who comprise the "church" are in fact the reinstituted House of Israel. The House of Judah still exists as a separate group, but also according to prophecy, the two sticks of Judah and Ephraim will one day be rejoined into one Israel.

This has always been God's plan. No covenant was ever made with gentiles, since the very word gentile implies heathen. Jeremiah 31:31 makes this plain. The New Covenant would be made with House of Israel (Ephraim), and House of Judah. God's eternal purpose was to bless all nations (gentiles) through Abraham, and that means all of God's people are "chosen" and all of God's people are Israel.

The term "Israel" is NOT synonymous with the term "Jew," which refers to the House of Judah only, a subset of the larger Israel. Likewise, the House of Ephraim is also a subset of the larger Israel, comprised of those gentiles who have responded to the gospel and who now worship the God of Israel.

The apostles, especially Paul, understood this mystery, and they all taught it in the New Testament quite clearly, though not obvious to those who have a limited understanding of the Old Testament prophecy.

I have written a 50 page booklet on this which goes through all the scriptures that show this quite clearly in the Bible. If you want to hang on to wrong ideas, you can just ignore me, but if you want to see something truly amazing in the Bible that you never saw before, I'll be happy to email you my electronic booklet. I present the ideas logically and clearly, with large annotated portions of scripture throughout.

Also, you will find out that the church in fact maintained a truly Israelite distinctive for the first 200 years of its history. It wasn't until evil men crept into the church and started to change it, that the "gentile" religion came into being that is commonly known as Christianity. This is not the faith or practice that was laid down by Jesus or the apostles, and yes, most of the world is following something that is polluted and corrupt. Happily though, God is raising up men around the world who have the task of bringing some level of restoration back to the glorious Bride of Messiah.

If you would like my booklet, please send me an email at [email protected]

God Bless you all!

[Gerl]

Rick Warren has successfully duped preachers (leaders) into his deception.

Each person on this blog...needs to put down the 'opinions' and go to the bible.

People not knowing what God's Word has allowed this spirit of anti-christ into the church.

Who would have thought...the anti-christ spirit in the last days the great falling away...would have risen straight up from the Baptist church.

Then again...any of you read the Revelation lately what God says to the seven churches? (ps: not to Israel). Same problem...spirit of Balaam...that is...teaching other to sin...and or ALLOWING (read the verses) it into the church. You also need to review therein what is the punishment for such things too.

[Marcia Perez]

http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/06/rick_warren_and.html

I remember reading that quote by Rick that he wasn't interested in converting Jewish souls. It made me sick to my stomach.

I tried finding the article again, but didn't find what I was looking for. Here's something just as good, though.