He said so!
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I just realized that Warren looks like Scott Bakula with another 15 pounds. Very interesting… ;-0
I wonder what Warren’s motivation is for this. He seems to be back-tracking, but why?
How can it be back-peddling if he never had an articulate position to begin with?
A Protestant espousing error?! I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
That’s really discouraging, to see a highly visible and influential Evangelical leader like Rick Warren waffle and stammer and trip over his own thoughts because he is so cowed at the thought of having some gay rights activists angry at him.
Fr. Gearhart, you may be right about Warren’s not having an articulate position to begin with, but he admitted to having answered one of his flock by indicating that traditional marriage must be respected. At least, that’s how it seemed to me when I listened to the interview. Now, it’s as though he’s trying to say that there’s a big difference between his private communication and public campaigning, in which he did not engage.
So I’m just wondering what has caused him to renounce what at one time was at least a private conviction.
Tim J. seems to think that he is afraid of gay rights activists. But are they really a threat to him?
At first, I was going to contend that “fear” is the wrong word but after thinking about it, I realized the verb is correct.
It is the object that is wrong.
Rick Warren is not afraid of gay activists. More likely he is afraid of being on the wrong side of the popularity curve.
It is of course the function of Protestantism to bend with the times. As the faith is practiced today it is barely recognizable from its initial incarnation with its sacraments, confession, kneeling, clerical hierarchy, etc…
This isn’t surprising. Protestantism is as Protestantism does.
What many people outside of southern Orange County don’t realize is that Mr. Warren’s congregation includes many gay men and lesbians who are sexually active. The gay and lesbian members of his congregation were shocked when Mr. Warren supported Proposition 8 and they protested vehemently his decision. Why? Mr. Warren teaches an “eternal security” platform. Confess a belief in Christ and be saved forever unconditionally. If I were they, I’d be shocked and dismayed, as well.
What’s this? A protestant who can’t make up his mind? This is more proof that protestantism is relativism. Just a bunch of sectarian opinions instead of holding to the truth.
“This isn’t surprising. Protestantism is as Protestantism does. ”
Come on, there are plenty of Evangelical prots who are stalwart defenders of marriage and who are not afraid to speak plainly and openly against gay “marriage”… James Dobson, for instance. No need to alienate those who DO stand with us.
Pope John Paul II personally took the initiative to unite the leaders of the world’s religions for a prayer summit at Assisi, Italy, in 1986.
Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Jews. Buddhism’s Dalai Lama, traditionally regarded as a living deity, chanted toward god. Animists from Africa, Hindus, Zoroastrians.
“We will stand side by side asking God to give us peace.”(L’Osservatore Romano, English version of the official Vatican newspaper, Oct. 27, 1986, pg. 1. ) With that papal invitation, 160 leaders from the religions of the world gathered to petition God.
While toleration for the cultures of others is commendable, it unofficially made an endorsement for false religions without precedent in the history of Christianity.
So before you criticize Protestants, take a look at the mixed messages coming from JPII and the Vatican.
Maybe Rick Warren allows non practicing homosexuals to be members of his church. It is no different than the Catholic Church, which has for years allowed non-practicing homosexuals to become priests.
I’m providing this to you in an effort to clarify statements made by Pastor Rick Warren during his April 6th appearance on CNN “Larry King Live.” Several comments he made during that interview have caused confusion which I would like to clarify on his behalf as media representative for Saddleback Church.
Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Dr. Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life — a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.
When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California’s Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues. Because he’s a pastor, not an activist, in response to inquiries from church members, he issued an email and video message to his congregation days before the election confirming where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue.
During the King interview, Dr. Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.
The Catholic church is constantly tripping over itself on the birth control issue. 90% of Catholics practice artificial birth control and are committing MORTAL SIN. Many Priests are too cowardly to tell people the truth. If this were widely discussed the exodus from the RCC would implode the church in America. Again to throw stones when you live in a glass house and Protestants are stealing your sheep in ever increasing numbers.
Judas!
Wow Jeff… could you spell “straw man”? We are talking about RW not the RCC. And if protestants are “stealing” sheep… Doesn’t this make protestant pastors as RW “Wolves in sheep skins???” (How is that for a straw man of my own 🙂
I meant Protestants with Capital “P”…
I have to admit there have been times I’ve obfuscated my beliefs to avoid alienating people who would find them offensive. I’d imagine that waffling to appease the masses is an enormous temptation for someone in Warren’s position — I’ve known priests in the Catholic faith who haven’t done much better.
“I’ve known priests in the Catholic faith who haven’t done much better.”
Happens all the time. Protestant pastors have no corner on cowardice.
This is just another example of what happens when politics start to dictate Doctrine…I am a Protestant and believe me, he does not represent me in any way.
>Again to throw stones when you live in a glass house and Protestants are stealing your sheep in ever increasing numbers.
Actually you’re not stealing sheep, you’re stealing goats.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0252.html
“While a lot of people leave the Church, they tend not to be good Catholics,” says Curtis Martin, president of Catholics United for the Faith, who himself returned to the Church after spending five years as an evangelical Protestant. “The Protestants [now] coming into the Church are the most devoted Protestants, people deeply committed to Scripture and prayer. We’re losing the numbers game but we are winning the quality game in spades.”
I like that quote.
Let’s drop the intramural Protestant/Catholic bashing now. The respective merits or demerits of the different sides of the confessional aisle is not the topic at hand.
Rick Warren’s disastrous exchange above is.
Those who wish to find fault with what he said can do better than “He says that because he’s a Protestant.”
Those who wish to defend him can do better than “You Catholics have faults, too.”
Jim Anderson’s response is the best trying to defend Warren that I’ve seen, but even if everything he says is true, I don’t see how it justifies much of what Warren does in the clip.
It still looks like a disaster to me.
Rick Warren apparently believes that Truth can be determined by majority vote.
Thanks for the clarification, Jim, but RW has now managed to send the opposite message; the whole country now believes he’s in favor of gay marriage.
…And a disaster it is Jimmy.
Did you see the Larry King interview of Joel Osteen?.
It was the same disaster- it is no struck of luck that both of these pastors belong to the Emergent Church.
Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Dr. Laura…
KING: But you’ve always favored that marriage must be between a man and woman.
SCHLESSINGER: I’m very big on human beings finding love, attachment and commitment and being faithful to it, because there’s more to benefit when there is real true commitment and faithfulness to it. I still believe, as just every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. So not calling it marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy and very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole.
KING: So, you favor marriage between a man and a woman, but you applaud the fact that even people of the same-sex can have that kind of commitment to each other.
SCHLESSINGER: That’s a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
“Let’s drop the intramural Protestant/Catholic bashing now. The respective merits or demerits of the different sides of the confessional aisle is not the topic at hand.
Rick Warren’s disastrous exchange above is.”
I agree. There are plenty of Protestants who are strong (and right) on this and similar important issues.
However, I’m not sure that this is so surprising on Warren’s part. After all, during the Fall he gave Mr. Obama a pass on biogenesis, when the latter claimed that it was “above his pay grade” to know whether a fetus is alive or not, as if it hadn’t been demonstrated conclusively (as conclusively as one can get in biology) by Pasteur almost 150 years ago.
(Trivia: The name “Saddleback” has always seemed a bit peculiar to me, for what it’s worth, because in mathematics a saddle point is a point from which a function can go in pretty much any direction. Though I doubt Pastor Warren is aware of that.)
P.S. I’m still having trouble posting using Firefox, because I can’t see the security image. Any suggestions, apart from using a different browser?
“Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.”
This seems a strange apology, for what if the incestuous relationship were adult and same-sex, e.g., two adult brothers, first cousins? Does the “gay’ part trump the ‘incest” part? Or is this relationship more bad than the same sort of relationship between two unrelated gay males?
And what does Warren mean by “not equivalent”? Does he mean “not as bad”? If so, then the apology is defensible, but not without its problems. For “not as bad” also means that consensual adult same sex relationships are in fact bad, which i suspect still won’t satisfy Warren’s gay critics.
However, one can argue that Warren is not necessarily right. For example, suppose that a consensual adult same sex relationship is between two women who are married to men and have children with those men. And suppose they know that if caught, this would ruin their marriages and families. Now, imagine an aunt and nephew who are roughly the same age but never knew each other until they were adults. Suppose they meet and fall in love and get married. By Warren’s lights, is that worse or better than the two adulterous women?
This is all tricky stuff if you don’t have a well-thought-out philosophy of the human person in order to test, rather than accommodate, the spirit of the age.
I have to say it:
Apparently, articulating a view of marriage is above Rick Warren’s pay grade.
“This is all tricky stuff if you don’t have a well-thought-out philosophy of the human person in order to test, rather than accommodate, the spirit of the age.”
Just as a point of curiosity (or perhaps it’s just confusion on my part), isn’t Pastor Warren rather famously the author of at least one book on how one should live one’s life? Wouldn’t someone want to have just such a “well-thought-out philosophy” before writing a book of that sort?
Apparently, articulating a view of marriage is above Rick Warren’s pay grade.
Apparently, articulating a view of marriage is something Rick Warren has already done and which he vocally repeated in his interview with Larry King.
“I Am Not Anti-Gay Marriage”
The video caption title “I Am Not Anti-Gay Marriage” is not a quote of Rick Warren’s words from the linked video. What Rick Warren says on the video is “I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist.” According to the self-described “media representative for Saddleback Church,” Rick Warren is “a pastor, not an activist,” as if Rick Warren and Saddleback Church hold and obviously articulate a position “where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue” without being “activist” on the issue.
Also, activist or not, in the TV interview with Larry King, Rick Warren stated:
“I actually believe that marriage is — really should be defined, that that definition should be — say between a man and a woman.”
“I don’t think that the definition of marriage should be changed.”
“Well, it’s not my opinion. As a pastor, I just have to do what the Bible tells me to do. And the way I interpret it, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
(Though I suspect to most people, the phrase “the way I interpret it, I believe that” is verbose for “in my opinion”.)
He’s just being a politician. He seems to be very fond of earthly success and prosperity, both of which demand skills as a politician. His position sounds a lot like that of John Biden, whom may say he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but acts as though he didn’t believe it. That way he can please his “Catholic” base while still appealing to gay rights people.
I think this is a new trend in the gay marriage issue; you say you’re against it (to please the slight majority of the population) but then act on legislation as if you didn’t (to please the rest).
Weak.
Activist x Pastor
Here’s what Wikipedia says about “activism”:
“Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social change, political change, economic justice, or environmental wellbeing. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.”
A pastor leads the flock. In his case, he’s a Christian pastor, so he supposedly leads the flock on the way of Christ. I would argue that a true pastor is indeed an activist based on the definition above.
What he means to say is that on the issue of gay marriage he chooses not to be a pastor, not to lead.
Unfortunately he is given as a voice for evangelicalism because of his “iconic” status.
Mr. Warren has even gone so far as to state that he never gave his congregation guidance on the issue of Prop.8-.
I agree with Norman Geisler’s assesment that this is exactly what Edmund Burke meant when he stated-“The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”.
“The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
“No one is good but God alone.”
Another troll. Starve same.
“No one is good but God alone.”
The 1986 Celtics were very good. So, they must be God. 🙂
Would the Rev. Warren deny being an activist against racism, if pressed by King? I doubt it.
The key to understanding this sort of stuff is to ask yourself this question, “Where is the culture going?” If it’s going in one direction, some clergy will find ways to accommodate. This is why whenever you hear an emergent church leader say, “Let’s think carefully and cautiously about same-sex marriage,” the eventyal “answer” will never fall into the traditional Christian category. As Fr. Neuhaus was fond of saying, whenever orthodoxy become optional, it will eventually be proscribed. God, I miss that man.
Would the Rev. Warren deny being an activist against racism, if pressed by King? I doubt it.
To be fair, Rick Warren wasn’t “pressed by King” on being an anti-gay marriage activist. For that matter, “pressed by King” is almost an oxymoron. Rather, Larry King lightly followed up with, “It’s not high on your road of issues?” to which Rick Warren responded, “No, no, it’s very low.” That was it and onward they went to other things.
Also, Rick Warren isn’t known for taking a stance on racism. Rick Warren and racism are not today married in controversy. Had Rick Warren made himself a controversial figure in that arena, or were we still in the 1940s and 1950s when, despite the involvement of the Catholic Church in the 1948 Perez case, many organized religious groups either ignored the issue of interracial marriage or insisted that such marriages should be discouraged because they were likely to fail, perhaps Rick Warren would have dodged the question likewise. (To note, even today, there are people speaking against interracial/transracial adoption for similar reasons.)
Angel of Death,
The question was necessarily a hypothetical, but I have little doubt — no doubt actually — that Warren would boldly proclaim himself an activist on race relations if pressed by King.
More to the point, he would boldly proclaim himself an activist on any number of important social issues.
That he will not proclaim himself an activist on gay marriage — indeed, that he he will boldly proclaim that he is not an activist on gay marriage — therefore says something. And that something is that he does not view marriage as an important social issue.
And it is there that Warren parts ways with the Church. As John Paul the Great ably demonstrated in his “Theology of the Body,” marriage has been an important social issue for the Church “from the beginning.”
I have little doubt — no doubt actually — that Warren would boldly proclaim himself an activist on race relations if pressed by King.
A segregationist is also “an activist for race relations”. Would you not doubt that Warren would deny being such an activist on race relations “if pressed by King”? Because in today’s world, being opposed to racism is generally not sufficiently controversial to embroil Warren in public contempt and for which King might want to press him. And in years past, segregationist leanings were not something every pastor would seek to deny, and if he did deny them, what of it? Do you only deny things if it’s trendy to do so?
More to the point, he would boldly proclaim himself an activist on any number of important social issues.
More to the point, he hasn’t.
That he will not proclaim himself an activist on gay marriage — indeed, that he he will boldly proclaim that he is not an activist on gay marriage — therefore says something. And that something is that he does not view marriage as an important social issue.
That might be what it says to you according to how you interpret it, but does that necessitate how he views it? One does not need to proclaim oneself an “activist” to be one. One can even boldly deny being an activist and be one all the more! After all, he did his part on the issue before the election and yet again on Larry King, and who knows what’s yet to come? Perhaps he just doesn’t want to be like a limited actor who plays an infamous role and then forever after never can do anything else. Perhaps his denial is just yet another part of his role that he continues to play in the larger anti-gay marriage drama.
Also, if something is “an important” issue, that does not mean it’s the single most important social issue topping every other issue for everyone for all time, or that Rick Warren must address it in every way that you think he should. There are many important issues and many people to address them and in many different ways.
Warren’s activism on topics ranging from global poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, global warming, etc. is well-documented.
On Prop 8 and the entire subject of gay marriage, Rick Warren would have done less damage to the Gospel (which I do believe is genuinely his primary concern) if he had stayed silent than he did by back-tracking.
And Rick Warren and his “media representative” assert that he didn’t backtrack “with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage,” rather that his original position had been blown out of proportion making it seem (to those misinformed) that he’s backtracking. “All of a suddenly out of it they made me, you know something that I really wasn’t,” namely an “activist”. “During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a [extra-congregational] statement, never — never once even gave an [extra-congregational] endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the — the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what — what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is — really should be defined, that that definition should be — say between a man and a woman. And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn’t.”
Rick Warren says this, Paris Hilton says that, and the Shamwow salesman always wears that headset. So be it. Amen.
With infinite wisdom and goodness, God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” toward an ultimate perfection “yet to be attained”. In God’s plan, the journey involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature, everything “consistent with Divine goodness, in conformity with justice and right order,” that all “minister to God’s design.” And so it is.
Angel of Death,
I understand that Warren was not an activist for Prop 8, and was uncomfortable being portrayed as such. That’s fine.
But why, if he was not backtracking, did he feel the need to personally apologize to all of his gay friends? (His words, not mine.)
why, if he was not backtracking, did he feel the need to personally apologize to all of his gay friends?
As his “media spokesperson” explained it, “that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage.” Rather, he was apologizing for words that were suggestive that he equated gay marriage [between unrelated adults] with “[brother-sister] incest or pedophilia [child rape].” To quote one offended gay person, “it seems to me that if a friend of mine said that my relationship was no different than having sex with my brother or sister or a young child, that person would no longer be my friend.”
Maybe you don’t recognize a difference between gay marriage / homosexuality and incest, but the State of California where Rick Warren has his ministry does. California Penal Code 285 says, “Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older, commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.” To compare, homosexuality is not punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
Maybe you don’t recognize a difference between gay marriage / homosexuality and incest…
Warren: I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Oh, I do.
Warren and his publicist can spin all they want, but his later apology and subsequent attempts to explain are backtracking.
And he was closer to the truth before he backtracked. The cited examples are equivalent in that they are not “marriage” whatever else they may be. In other words, they may be more or less despicable, or more or less blame-worthy (and therefore not equivalent in that sense), but they are equally non-marriage.
And Warren has, regrettably, blurred those lines.
his later apology and subsequent attempts to explain are backtracking
Every answer, clarification, return home, the Catholic religion, the word “but”, and even a review of exactly what’s already been said can all be backtracking. There’s nothing instrinsically wrong with backtracking.
The cited examples are equivalent in that they are not “marriage”
Likewise, your father and a zebra are equivalent in that they are not goldfish. And “equivalent” and “different” are equivalent in that they are not Swahili. And heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent in that they are not bestiality.
Warren has, regrettably, blurred those lines.
You blur quite well yourself. Your own use of “equivalent” as essentially meaning “not identical in every way” can now be added to the many other definitions… equal, as in value, force, or meaning; having similar or identical effects; being essentially equal, all things considered; like in signification or import; something equal in some limited way; etc.
“Tim J. seems to think that he is afraid of gay rights activists. But are they really a threat to him?”
I’d say so, insofar as Warren’s agenda is to be ‘America’s Pastor’, the next Billy Graham. He certainly doesn’t want to be on the losing end if the ‘gay rights’ movement turns out to be another civil rights movement in the eye of the mainstream culture, in other words, if in 10, 20, 30 years denying Adam and Steve their ‘right’ to marry is seen by most as an ideological act just as abominable as not allowing blacks in your restaurant — and given the spiritual depravity of human beings this turn of events is likely to take place. Warren will straddle the centre until the scales tip, and then, I have little doubt, he will make room in his statement of faith for sacred sodomy.
Angel of Death,
There is a problem with backtracking when it is done to satisfy the “world” at the expense of the Gospel.
Beyond that, I doubt there is much more that I have to say on the matter that would be of interest to you, and I suspect that our discourse is becoming tiresome to others.
You may have the last word if you so desire.
Peace.
“Without a doubt, I make mistakes all the time,” said Rick Warren. “I always own up to mistakes that I actually do. I just won’t own up to mistakes that weren’t really a mistake.” Many false claims, he contended, have taken on a life of their own on Internet blogs. “People don’t understand that I am fundamentally, foremost an evangelist,” he said. “It’s what I care about. I don’t care about politics, I don’t care about political correctness, I don’t care about what established groups want me to do. I care about getting people into heaven.” “I’m willing to put up with the misunderstanding. I’m willing to have people go, ‘Ohh, he’s such a politically naive guy.’ Or, he’s a pawn to be used… but I’m using the gospel, getting the gospel out.” “[I]t’s going to sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, but I’m not, I believe this – the Bible says evil has to be opposed. Evil has to be stopped. The Bible does not say negotiate with evil. It says stop it. Stop evil.” “I do apologize, because I apologize for anything done in the name of Christ, that Jesus would disavow.” Warren said apologies actually are an important part of his evangelism strategy, noting how the approach can disarm antagonism. He pointed to one of the speakers at Saddleback’s AIDS conference, David Miller, a founder of ACT UP, who he “led to Christ, simply because I started with an apology.” “Now, I could have been defensive back, but I said, ‘David, I’m sorry, I want to apologize to you for any meanness that’s been said to you in the name of Christ,” Warren said. “And it was like I punched him in the gut,” Warren continued. “You could have knocked the wind out of his sails. Like I just popped the balloon. And then, here, two years later, after this relationship, I’m going to baptize him.” Warren contended some criticism is simply baseless, charging many “don’t do their due diligence on research.” Warren said he has discussed with Billy Graham how to handle criticism. “The general policy is, as much as possible, you don’t respond,” he said. “And so, I have to live with a lot of misconceptions…” (12/2007)
“The Bible tells us that ‘Satan is the accuser of the brethren.’ Unfortunately, sometimes Christians do Satan’s job for him. They accuse and criticize other believers. I’m sure that makes Satan smile. The Bible says it is foolish to spout off about issues before knowing the facts, but the Internet has made it very easy to do. God says, ‘He who answers before listening – that is his folly and his shame.’ Proverbs 18:13 (NIV) God also says, ‘Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.’ Proverbs 18:2 (NLT)” (11/2006)
“The Bible tells us that ‘Satan is the accuser of the brethren.’ Unfortunately, sometimes Christians do Satan’s job for him.”
Are you accusing a brother of accusing the brethren?
“‘Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.’ ”
True… or they often just habitually contradict the opinions of others.
Are you accusing a brother of accusing the brethren?
No, just tossing out some of Rick Warren’s old shoes. “Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes,” Warren said. “‘Cause when you finally do criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.” (9/2006)
“Of course, you friends know my heart, my motivation, and my 26 year track record. What matters to me is not pleasure… possessions… prestige… politics… power… or popularity. I couldn’t care less about these things. I care about bringing people to Jesus, and I will do whatever it takes to “Reach One More For Jesus” as my father’s dying words instructed me. No criticism will ever stop me from doing that. Like Paul, God has called me as a missionary to non believing cultures, and he has opened doors in amazing ways to share the Gospel behind lines that pastors don’t normally get invited to. Paul was willing to go anywhere and talk to anyone about Jesus. So was Billy Graham. So am I. I’d go into hell if I could bring some people out with me,” said Rick Warren. (11/2006)
Almost as bad as Notre Dame and now Georgetown!
First in inviting an antichrist to speak, and now in hiding all references and symbols of Jesus in chapel when the antichrist speaks. At least they didn’t replace the IHS with the ‘0’.
I hadn’t seen Jimmy’s requested when I posted. I had simply observed and thought “great! 🙁 It’s still a place of anti-non-Roman-Catholic hate in violation of ut unam sint.”
I doubt that “Francis Beckwith” is the real Francis Beckwith, who is a gentleman and a scholar.
Has “Francis Beckwith” in this combox behaved in a way un-scholarly or un-gentlemanly?
F.B. has posted here before… what leads you to think the above poster isn’t him?
Watch this video:
http://blip.tv/file/2012149
Rev Warren should watch it too
His book Purpose Driven life was not that bad.
Many good points.