Rick Warren avoids the ‘J’ word while speaking to rabbis
flockwoodThe God Blog has a fascinating post about evangelist Rick Warren’s purpose-driven speech to a group of leading rabbis. Apparently, Warren spoke at length but never mentioned the ‘J’ word (as in ‘Jesus’) a single time. Observers in the evangelical and fundamentalist communities are split over whether Warren’s omission was tactful or timid.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
This is quite interesting. My understanding of Warren’s real contribution to church polity was his encouragement of his congregants to join together into small groups within the congregation, almost Communist-inspired cells. His theory is that while most people can ignore a huge group, and stop attending, when they’re part of a five or six member group, they’ll be missed if they don’t attend.
As far as his not using the J word, well, neither did Jesus. Everything that Jesus taught was straight mainstream Jewish theology of the day. The only thing later Christians added was substituting Jesus’ name for Yahweh. The Christian communion service is very similar to Jewish worship services, and early Christians used the Jewish Bible until they got around to writing their own. In some ways, he’s just coming home.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:19 am
call me old fashioned but I have always said anyone called to preach who cannot use the words Heaven, Hell, or Jesus is not called by God, they are a false prophet–which many abound, and people need to be careful for God may not allow you into His Heaven for following these people. Read Jeremiah 14 for verification.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I’m curious. Was anyone offended by anything that Warren actually said? Did Warren disavow his belief that Jesus is Lord? Is there anything to indicate that Warren lacks conviction or courage?
Is there any reason to believe that “never mentioned” [Frank] is synonymous with “cannot use the word” [Peach]? Yesterday I talked with maybe 100 different people, and in most of those conversations I did not mention Jesus even once. Does that make me a false prophet?
I am reminded of school prayer advocates who somehow confuse “not saying there is a God” with “saying there is not a God”.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Jose: I just want to thank you for always correcting my speech; in the long run that will make me a better writer as well as orator. I should have used words such as pastor/minister/preacher–do you fit into any of those categories? Of course I did say called to preach, but for clarification sake I should have used the word ‘does not’ instead of ‘cannot’ say the name of Jesus or does not talk about heaven/hell in whatever message they are presenting as a false prophet.
Yes Jose, if you are ashamed to use the name of Jesus (reverently) when talking to your friends and you call yourself a minister/pastor/preacher/ or church person/lay minister/lay pastor or any other terminology in that category, then others might consider you a false prophet and stay clear of you–stay away from you-for generally pay no attention to you, or avoid you all together.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Peach and Jose define the issue perfectly. To those, like Peach, to whom teaching the traditional Christian doctrines, like the primacy of Jesus, and the exclusive nature of Christianity, is the whole point of the exercise, Warren failed miserably, because he didn’t try to “convert” the heathen Jews. This is an intellectually honest position, arguably moreso than what passes for ecumenicalism today, though one I don’t agree with.
To someone like Jose, who takes a more ecumenical posture, Warren did great, because he demonstrated that “we are all brothers under the skin” and “let’s all sit down and hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya together” mentality that makes up modern ecumenicalism, without ever alluding to what he believes, what the Jews believe, or what to do about any differences.
To me, a “thousand faces of God” Anglican, he missed on both counts. What he should have said is that while he believes in Jesus, and the Jews don’t, that’s okay, because what counts is how we live our lives and treat each other, and that there’s nothing wrong with people seeing different faces of God. I suspect that would have harelipped his more evangelical brethren. He rode the fence, and apparently did it pretty well. His “excuse,” that he had plenty of natural born Christians to convert before he got to the Jews, is a bit insulting to the Jews, but at least he spoke to them. Maybe things are improving after all.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
If the audience knew nothing of Warren, if they did not understand that he was a pastor of a Christian church, that would be different. If Warren censored his comments because he was ashamed of Jesus (to use Peach’s word), that would also be different. I just don’t see either of those as being true in this case. Again, what did Warren actually DO that bothers people so much?
I suspect that Warren’s actions were more along the line of reaching out to people where they are, while also being honest with yourself, your audience, and with God. If a starving homeless person appeared at my church door, begging for food and ranting that God is awful, I would be inclined to give the person a meal and not argue theology right then. Peach, it seems, would insist on a comprehensive Bible study, maybe even a baptism, before anything else. According to my understanding of the Gospel, the first approach is more Christlike.
Peach, I’m not ashamed of my faith but neither do I poke others in the nose with it. It does not have to be one or the other. I am very matter-of-fact about my church activities, and I enjoy theological discussions with others. Many of my co-workers are followers of another religion. More often it is they who are reluctant to discuss their faith. Given the number of enthusiastic and intolerant Christians, it seems clear why they are shy.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Jose: you assume that i brow beat others into talking about Jesus. Not so. However, if a starving person showed up at my home or church door ranting that God is awful, i could not help but remind them had it not been for God/Jesus there would not be a door to knock on, hence no food would be dealt out.
Many of my coworkers are Muslims, and i often just smile when they converse about religion. I even had one really good muslim friend ask me how I could eat pork. I stated that it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it that defiles and corrupts the person. She smiled and stated that was a very good saying, and decided by religious beliefs weren’t bad after all.
Jose: it is not what you say, rather how you say it. It is not what you write, rather what can be read between the lines/words.
I personally would not want to confront God on Judgment Day, trying to come up with an excuse as to why I could not share Jesus with 1 out of 100 people i come in contact with. What will be your excuse?
August 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Oh! and by the way on that Baptism thing you mentioned, my religious beliefs are that Baptism will not get you into Heaven, and there is no Biblical evidence for such. If you read closely, one will understand Baptism has to be of the Holy Spirit–not water.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Peach, It strikes me as odd that you cited Jeremiah to support your point about the importance of using such terms as “heaven,” “hell,” and “Jesus.”
Jeremiah himself, in one of the longest books in the Bible, failed to use “heaven,” “hell,” and “Jesus.”
For criteria for false prophets see: Deuteronomy 18:15-22, and Jeremiah 23:9-17, 30-32. None of these criteria include using (or failing to use) “heaven,” “hell,” or “Jesus.”
August 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
AG: Jeremiah 14 is about the repercussions of following a false prophet.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Peach says: “It is not what you say, rather how you say it.”
Nope, I’ll take “what” over “how” any day of the week. I’ll take an authentic message of God’s love, whether or not it directly invokes the name of Jesus, over a rousing sermon full of JESUS! and HELL! and DAMNATION! that twists and perverts the Gospel.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
It is essential that our motive in preaching be one of seeking God’s approval rather than man’s. If one cannot preach the ‘gospel’ and neglect mentioning the name of Jesus, what need is there to preach at all?
August 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Perception and objectivity are different in everybody, if people could discuss religion civilly, an amicable consensus could breed deeper thought and a direction for more answers.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
One other thing to consider, the Jewish community doesn’t think Jesus has been here yet.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I would think the idea about spreading the ‘Gospel” is to mention Jesus’s name, as well as, a plan of salvation. Kind of hard to spread the news without mentioning them, unless you are teaching another gospel.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Peach,
Read John 3:3-5 and Luke 7:29,30. You might want to rethink that “baptism-isn’t-necessary-for-salvation” theory. Besides, why would John and Phillip, two ministers of the gospel who are mentioned as baptizing, waste their time if it wasn’t necessary.
And what about the great commission given by the Lord to his apostles? What did he tell them in the 16th chapter of Mark?
On top of that, why would the Lord himself receive baptism from John if it wasn’t necessary? You can talk semantics all you want about whether or not the Bible expressly commands it; I think it’s pretty obvious that it does, but I can see why others think differently. However, I would think that logically it would be best to see that Jesus himself was baptized, his followers that lived during his time were baptized and when the one who you profess to follow says something like “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned,” I’d rather believe he could have just as easily added the words “and is not baptized” between “believeth not” and “shall be damned.”
That’s just me….
As far as Mr. Warren not mentioning Jesus’s name in his speech to this Jewish group; what was the intention of this remarks? Were they to preach the gospel? or we’re they to teach principles of how to improve their life in general?
Look at the intent of the remarks. I might not agree with his theology, but I think Mr. Warren has done enough mentioning of the name of Christ to be completely sure he is not shy about doing so when the occassion requires it.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
DD: Jesus nor Paul ever baptized anyone, so if baptism by water is a requirement then what would have been their justification for not doing so. Acts 19:1-5 many were baptized by John the Baptist but did not receive the Holy spirit in this baptism, so therefore, in order to receive salvation were rebaptized. Parents can baptise infants all day long and until they attain the age of accountability it is to no avail. Proxy baptism also has no justfication–for the dead know nothing.
When you receive Jesus into your heart, then the holy spirit also come into your heart and the things of earth and man slowly leave, thereby causing the soul to do those things which are of righteousness, one of those being baptized with water-for the repentance of sins.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Peach and David, the real question here is whether being a Christian is necessary to be saved. If so, Peach is right: When you meet someone on the street, you should preach the gospel to them. Most of the mainstream denominations, including my own Episcopal Church, rejected that view long ago, and believe that the gates of heaven are open to people of good faith, of all faiths. If you take this view, then Warren was right in trying to talk to the rabbis about things that could help them, without asking them to reject their Jewish beliefs, which they are unlikely in the extreme to do anyway.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Dear Peach…..
1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is largely about divisions in the church over baptism and other matters (imagine that! Even way back then…). Paul mentions in verse 14 that he did baptize Crispus and Gaius… meaning that he did preform baptisms.
Paul was baptized himself almost immediately after his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and well before beginning his ministry.
Moreover, Paul wrote a lot of about baptisism, a topic that would not reoccur in his letters if he did not think it was important. I think you should reread Ephesians 4:4, which asserts that there is one baptism, not two (ie. one of the spirit and one of water).
It was the practice of the ancient church to baptize infants, a practice that was universal in Christianity for over a thousand years. To assert that “parents can baptise infants all day long and until they attain the age of accountability it is to no avail,” is to claim that there were no “real” Christians before the 16th century, a pretty audacious claim. We can argue whether there is scriptural support or not (I believe there is), but obviously if the people who knew and learned at the feet of the apostles practiced infant baptism, then the “error” must have started rather early…
Also, please direct me to where the “age of accountability” is defined in the Bible…
I also would be bereft as a Lutheran not to point out that Baptism in not a “once and done” kinda thing, but rather that we should all die and rise anew in Christ each day, living into our baptisms and living out our baptismal vocation.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Guys: (I want to remind everyone that I am a semi-retired x-ray tech–not a theologian) However, Lets start with 2 Samuel 12:20-24: in which King David tells those that he shall one day see his dead child–was this child baptized? Were any of the old Testament patriarchs baptized. If John was baptizing before Christ–then the knowledge of baptism was around for some time. What were they being baptized for? Many things are not defined in the Bible, much of the time we are left to ‘infer” exactly what the Bible interprets by our own logic. Jesus said that God was a God of the living, so how could these people been in heaven, if one has to be baptized to get in?
in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33 John the Baptist states that one is coming to baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. So how did Jesus do this without dunking anyone? What does Baptism/immersion into water mean to each one of you- It is more than just remissions of sins to me-it also symbolized Jesus death, burial and resurrection and gives me hope for eternal salvation in that one day I too will be resurrected. How can an infant or dead person ever have this understanding/concept of why Jesus died? If they cannot grasp the concept or proclaim a faith in Jesus, then their baptism is to no avail. Yes, unfortunately these practices along with the false teachers, crept into the churches at an early time frame: Jude 1:3-4 Acts 20:29-30. The reason many false doctrines reside within a religion, is due to the fact that those in higher archary wanted to stay in charge, keeping those in the pews in ignorance of how to test and abolish these ungodly practices.
Now ask yourself this question: if you were in the dessert dying-never having been baptized, no water for miles and you asked Jesus to be your savior and then subsequently died-do you really think God would not accept you into his heaven? God knows what is in your heart, and if your heart has Jesus in it, then you are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Peach, you’ve done a good job explaining why you believe in adult baptism, and also believe in the doctrine that baptism is not necessary for salvation. I agree with your second point, but have to side with UKLutheran on the first, even if one believed that baptism is necessary for salvation, which as I said, I don’t.
But, UKL is quite right that until the Protestant reformation, every Christian, whether Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (which were the two brands available) baptized infants by “sprinkling,” just as those churches and many others still do today, including the Episcopal Church. She’s also right that whatever John the Baptist did in the Jordan River, the earliest descriptions we have of the way Christians actually practiced showed that infant baptism had taken hold virtually from the beginning.
Do you believe that every Christian in the world just got it wrong for 1600 years? Do you really believe that during that long time period, no one was really baptized?
And, to take it one step further, since in most churches only the baptized can partake of holy communion, do you believe that for 1600 years, no one had an effective communion?
And, if they were wrong about this, what else were they wrong about? Were they wrong in deciding what books of the New Testament to canonize? The process of canonization was undertaken entirely by men (and they were unfortunatly all men) who practiced infant baptism, and engaged in various other practices with which you wouldn’t agree, either. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
I know these are big questions, but when you decide a whole millenium of theology is just wrong, it makes a big hole.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I’m not sure what is current on the catholic theology, but when we were in parochial school, baptism was taught in three degrees, baptism of desire, baptism of water and baptism of blood. If you were in life or death situations, these were all considered relative. Baptism of desire, if the end was eminent and your heart was true you could pray for baptism and God would except it. Baptism of water , today’s standard, baptism of blood, if you were on your deathbed and wished for baptism in sincerity from God , he would grant it. This would have been after the Vatican II counsel in 64.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I think you all have it all wrong as to what I’m trying to say. Baptism is not a prerequisite for admittance into heaven, neither is having a soul (angels are already been in and out of heaven and they were created soul-less).
Many people want to believe that infant baptism is for the removal of original sin–however many times the Bible states that children do not pay for the sins of their fathers, we each one have to account for our own sins. If an infant does not pay for the sin of their father, and cannot confess Jesus as their personal savior, or is able to repent of sins, or even desire to be baptized (what sin could an infant commit anyways?), then what exactly is the purpose of sprinkling.
If you are talking about dedicating that infant by means of sprinkling or ‘baptising’ then we would be talking about a different subject.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Peach,
I have a few questions for you:
For what purpose did John baptize?
Did the prophets of the Old Testament know who Jesus was?
Does the same person who baptizes you with “fire” have to be the one who baptizes you by water?
Why would Jesus himself say that we must be born of water and the Spirit to be saved?
Do you think God is fair and “no respecter of persons?”
Answering these questions will help me understand where you’re coming from in your beliefs, and no, I’m not trying to “set a trap.”
August 18th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
John baptized for the remission of sins but in all four gospels states that one who is coming will baptize with the Holy spirit—fire was always meant as a symbol of cleansing and purging of evil; read Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33
Yes the prophets knew Jesus, Jesus was the main theme of the majority of the prophecies.
Although Job was not considered a prophet said in Job 19:25 I know my Redeemer liveth and he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
The story of Nicodemus and Jesus is located in John 3: 1-22 in order to understand the water part, you cannot separate from the original question in verse 4-can I go back into my mother’s womb? Many religions equate being born of water with baptism. Neither one of them (Nicodemus or Jesus) was talking about baptism-being dunked or immersed in water, rather they were in fact talking about being born naturally-earthly- in the flesh.
Most religions teach that one must go to an alter, confess their sins, say a sinner’s prayer, be baptized-especially into the church and you are on the road to heaven. But this is truly an “unbiblical” teaching. When Jesus stated that you must be born of the spirit, he was saying “you must believe in me and accept me as your personal savior”. Poor old Nic just couldn’t quite get the picture, though and Jesus winds up chastising him. So when you asked the question “does the same person who baptized you with fire have to be the one who baptized you by water?’ it absolutely makes no sense to me.
Modern day Christians usually want to be immersed as an outward sign that they now ‘belong’ to Jesus for all eternity. But being immersed does not guarantee admittance into heaven. Many who believe they are Christians will be told “I never knew you”.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world-not just a person or two, but the whole world, His son was not sent to condemn, but to save. He is more than just, and more just than any human deserves.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Peach, Angels aren’t human, you shouldn’t confuse the 2, They are supernatural beings created by the hand of God. Catholics are taught that all who enter this world have sin, as a result of what happened in the garden of Eden. Baptism does purify the soul there are different options for different circumstances, Catholics like to cover all the bases. Its your faith or the faith of one that loves you that can cleanse you from sin to prepare you to enter the Kingdom of God. If your a parent and you have faith and your child is on a deathbed and has yet to be baptised, prayer to God will achieve this. Just because it doesn’t make sense right now, studying in a different direction could help put the pieces of the puzzle together.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
perplexed: I am not the one confused about angels, demons, false prophets, or baptism. You can be immersed into water all day long; but until you are doused with the Holy spirit it is in vain. Likewise you can be doused with the Holy spirit-to be purified, but never be immersed/sprinkled, yet still be able to enter the Kingdom of God.
Most religions today are like Nicodemus in that they have never understand the difference in water baptism and baptism with the Holy spirit, and multitudes have lived believing that a spouse will go to hell because they have never been immersed into water.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Peach, have you considered the symbolic meaning of baptism and its origin. Go back in time to when John the Baptist began paving the way for Christ. Consider what was available to the people then, the persecution that they faced. If you weren’t one of the elite there was a better than a good chance that you were persecuted and chastised simply because of your social status. The basis for baptism is faith, faith that the Holy spirit will fill your soul and guide you to do what is right without fear.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
perplexed: we dare talking about two different things -earthly and heavenly. There is not one piece of scripture that says you must be baptized with water to enter heaven-otherwise with this baptism you will go to hell. You are arguing the moral logistics behind the baptism and putting more into what I am trying to write(say)
Most Christians have been brought up to believe that baptism is a “part of” salvation; meaning you won’t get into heaven without it. The Bible teaches that it is a ’sign’ of salvation; meaning that most, who are filled with the Holy Spirit, do immerse in water to show all how much they believe.
I repeat that in John 3: when Jesus says you must be born of water-he was referring to an earthly birth, which is also what Nicodemus was talking about; the water is broken before birthing a child. Jesus then say “and Spirit’ which is of heaven.
peace and see ya all around the threads.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Peach, what I’m trying to get through to you is the basis for religion is faith.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:47 am
While we’re on the subject of Warren and mentioning Jesus by name, here’s an interesting excerpt from Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s piece in the WaPo dealing with the Saddleback forum.
“…it was remarkable that McCain could speak to a pastor for an hour and not mention Jesus’ name once or cite the Bible by chapter and verse. Obama, on the other hand, not only proclaimed Christ his Savior, but quoted scripture knowledgeably.”