Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 1

Do not remove the links to the critiques, please.
The following discussion is about one person's POV and should not be included on the primary Wikipedia page because they clearly violate the NPOV value.

RICK WARREN is a deceptive "wolf in sheep's clothing" bringing destructive heresies and false teachings into the church, scattering the sheep. He does not need promoting in any size, shape, or form, he needs to be thoroughly exposed. 100 links to outside critiques into what he is doing would not be enough. Rick Warren should not even be on Wikipedia. Do your research into what the man is all about. He is full of pride and arrogance and on an ego trip bulding his very own Purpose Driven® country, Rwanda in Africa. As someone said, the article on here @ Wikipedia about Rick Warren is like one big advertisment for Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven® empire. Do NOT CUT the external links to the Critiques, please. People have the right to know how Rick Warren twists and distorts the Bible, the truth and many other things, to promote his ideas on how things should be run, even the church. He wants to be known as the man who brought about a "second reformation." The only thing Rick Warren is bringing about is a "de-formation." He wants to redefine the whole of Christianity to his way thinking and of doing things. Tragic. He is deceiving millions upon millions of people around the world. Is he another Jim Jones? Bringing about eternal spiritual death? Fides Viva 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly Rick Warren should not be promoted here. But neither should the POV that you express above. NPOV doesn't even mean promoting all views equally. It means avoiding promoting any of them. Andrewa 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, does expressing facts about falsehood constitute a POV?


 * Good question. Not necessarily, but it may, depending on how those facts are selected.

How is it possible to expose falsehoods and lies with or without a NPOV.


 * A very good question. See user:andrewa/creed, and below.

I am not trying to be contentious.


 * I think you are promoting a POV. Whether or not you are trying to be contentious is irrelevant.

I do not mind articles about someone if they are true but what about when that person is a deceiver. How do you go about revealing that?


 * Can't you see that your opinion that Warren is a deceiver is just that... an opinion? It may also be a fact, but it's not encyclopedic.


 * That is to say, it is a valid opinion. It may even be shown to be true, although my opinion is that it is false. But it is good to express it, in the right form and places. It's just that Wikipedia is not one of those places.

A major newspaper in the USA is in the process right now in doing an expose of Rick Warren and his teachings, which hopes to show where he errs.


 * Is this online? Where?

I haven't contributed in a major way about Rick Warren in the article,


 * Wisely, IMO. At the risk of being harsh, there's no evidence that you have anything to contribute to the article. That's not to say you have nothing to say. It's rather to say that you are so passionate about one POV that IMO it's most unlikely that any of your edits will be net improvements.


 * This passion is good. It's just that Wikipedia is not the place to express it.

just mainly researched articles and links and audios off site and posted the links on Wikipedia so as folks can study them for themselves and make up their own minds what is truth and what is error. Rick Warren weilds just about absolute power and is turning into a tyrant. As Lord Acton said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." How does one stop someone like Rick Warren?


 * For a start, try respecting the opinions of others. This is important if you are to gain their respect, so that they listen to you. In the case of Wikipedia, this means abiding by our standards, in particular the prohibition on all promotion here. And I can see that you will find this very difficult, so difficult that I think you should seriously consider two alternatives.


 * What I hope you will do is to find a way of contributing that does not pose these problems. For example, we lack articles on many important old testament characters. At present, your contributions seem to be all related to this contentious issue.


 * Working on other articles will have two positive effects. Firstly it will build your credibility here. Secondly and more important, it will help you to better understand what Wikipedia is. There are many Christian Wikipedians with good standing here, and I would welcome another.


 * The alternative, I'm afraid, is to leave Wikipedia to those who do understand and respect its culture. I hope it will not come to that, but I think in your case it is something that you should consider. And I say that as a brother in Christ.

His words are just about law all across the board and around the world. From Presidents to the poorest of the poor. Thanks for your comments. Fides Viva 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with everything Warren says. He's human. But personally I rejoice that presidents listen to him.


 * I would welcome the chance to talk to you offline about this. You could email me, or post to one of my discussion channels. See alderspace or my user page for links to these. Andrewa 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

" But personally I rejoice that presidents listen to him. "

I cringe to think that presidents(let alone anyone) listen to Rick Warren, a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a false teacher of the most deceptive kind. Rick Warren is building his own purpose driven® empire and he will steamroll over anyone that gets in his way. He will not be happy until he has world wide domination with his purpose driven® program. Tragic. Nothing to rejoice about there. There should be tears of repentance and weeping and wailing! Read these and weep:
 * Decisional Regeneration (Further Thoughts) Over at Pastors.com, one of Rick Warren's ministry sites, I saw the following headline, 4,000 saved during Saddleback’s Easter services. I clicked on the article and read the following, "For the past 25 years, Easter services at Saddleback have been a time dedicated to changing lives. This year was no different as more than 4,000 people, the highest one-weekend total in the church’s history, checked boxes indicating they were committing their life to Christ."


 * "And that brings us to the article at Pastors.com. I was struck by the clear identification of salvation with ticking a box. After all, the headline proclaimed "4,000 saved during Saddleback’s Easter services" and the very first paragraph of the article indicated that all of these people "checked boxes indicating they were committing their life to Christ.""


 * " In a statement that seems to border on blasphemy, Rick Warren told Saddleback staff, "We just had a Pentecost, where God came down, God showed up and God worked" as he reminded them that on Pentecost God saved 3,000 men and women. "


 * "Perhaps the more serious problem is that the 4000 people who checked a box can read this article and gain assurance that they are now believers. After all, the article says that on the basis of 4000 check marks, 4000 people were saved. But they may not have been. There is little doubt that even the Saddleback staff would admit that. I am sure that all of the people who ticked the boxes did so with sincerity. I am sure that they meant it in their hearts. But without the presence and prior work of the Spirit, that is not enough. These people may now have false confidence that they are Christians, when in fact they are not. Their assurance is in the fact that they made a decision."


 * "When we speak of men and women who have become believers, we are treading on sacred ground. We are in the realm of the miraculous, for only a miracle of God can breathe life into a sinful, dead human. "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will" (John 5:21). We need to be careful that we do not confuse human action with Divine, and that we do not provide human assurance for an act that only God can do."


 * Saddleback Sponsors "Hollywood Glitz and Glam" Singles Danc No commentary needed for this except to say that Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Christianity is looking uglier all the time. Note that it is in the worship center. That's because they're worshiping at the golden calf of their own bellies.
 * Hall of Shame Award Given to Saddleback The Slice of Laodicea Hall of Shame Award goes today to Saddleback Church and Rick Warren. Rick Warren's many Bible translations apparently don't contain the verse,


 * "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4


 * 'Decisions For Christ' - The Measure of Success? Trophies for "decisions" are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God's blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we'll explore the claims, concept, and counting of "decisions for Christ".

Rick Warren says 4000 people were saved Easter 2005 just because they ticked a box on a card committting themselves to Christ. How does he know they were saved? God give a special gift to Rick Warren of who is a Christian or not? What sinful pride and arrogance the man has. He is an unrepentant sinner leading the church astray. Satan will be rejoicing over what Rick Warren is doing and who he is talking to. And you do too? Horrors.... you should be exposing Rick Warren for the false teacher he is and the lies he tells and the distortions and torturings of the Bible he commits. Fides Viva 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect your views. I think they are wrong on this matter, but here is not the place to discuss them in any detail. This talk page is primarily for discussing things that are relevant to what the article should say, and like all Wikipedia pages it is entirely dedicated to building the encyclopedia.


 * As I have said before, there are appropriate places for this discussion, and I'd welcome it there. Andrewa 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See below
The critiques section below continues the relevant part of this discussion. Andrewa 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A Major Revision
This page needs major revisions to conform to Wikipedia standards (and the problems are not just limited to NPOV issues). Here are my suggestions as to what should be changed. Hopefully, this can start a discussion.

1) In general, better organization. The entire first section (before "The P.E.A.C.E. Plan") can be organized into a brief overview section, and a (choronological) biography section.

2) Cut the P.E.A.C.E. plan section. One sentence stating that Dr. Warren created the P.E.A.C.E. plan is good enough. Then either link to a separate Wikipedia article or to http://www.peace.gs/ if a reader wants more information. This will also get rid of some of the more eggregious fawning sentences ("Rick Warren is passionate about finding solutions to the world's biggest problems." I don't doubt that he is, but is it really necessary to include this in an encylopedia article?).

3) Cut the Work in Rwanda section. Again, one or two sentences will suffice.

4) Cut the Media Quotes section.

5) Expand The Purpose Driven Network section by moving some of the earlier information into here. Again, this will help with organization.

6) Cut the External Links to critiques... section. We do not need 30 different links to outside sources. Wikipedia articles are not collections of links. If a reader wants to find more information on Rick Warren, he/she can Google him. The five links currently under External links are good enough.

7) If there are outspoken detractors of Dr. Warren, use one or two sentences to give readers a general overview on the common criticisms leveled at his ideas.

Thoughts?

--69.28.2.225 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of this is done, but the refactor I have performed has mainly provided a platform for these improvements. Go to it. See refactor below. Andrewa 12:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rick Warren's Critics
this whole article appears to be an ad

Should it be referenced like that?


 * Although Dr. Warren has many followers, his Purpose Driven teaching has given rise to many critics as well. Prominent names such as John F. MacArthur and Dave Hunt to name a few.  Might it be prudent to discuss the opposition?  Or is that too controversial?

I am not a detractor, but language such as Warren is "not a pretentious person who seeks the limelight,[but] he quietly goes about his work" is hardly objective. --SonPraises 02:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted the critics section, it had poor grammar and poor quality, and only expressed the opinion of a tiny minority and cited a small site. I agree that the Rick Warren page needs a lot of work, but this section was not going anywhere as-is. Clearly Rick Warren faces oppositions and critics, so someone may re-write the section, preferably from scratch, with a good source or two, NPOV, and reasonable grammar.


 * I created a section in External Links named Criticism. Will this solve the problem? What's the point of trying to avoid any information about the article's subject? --FernandoAires 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of free research time
I have heard, but am currently unable to cross reference/verify, that Rick Warren has been able to repay his church his entire salary, and that he works as a 'volunteer pastor' using his book as his income. Do you think this would be relevant to the entry?

Ricks Salary
Here are the facts that have been widely known. Every Saddleback Church member could confirm this:

1. Rick and Kay Warren give 90% of their income to charity, and live on 10%. Do you know ANYONE else this generous? They started tithing 10% when then were married 30 years ago. Each year of their marriage they raised it at least 1%, in order to grow in generousity and, in the Warren's words, "break the grip of materialism, by being more and more generous." After 30 years of marriage they give 90% away.

2. When Purpose Driven Life became the best selling book in the world (for the past 3 years) they made 4 decisions:

A) To not change their lifestyle at all. They still live in their same house and Rick Warren still drives a 4 year old Ford.

B) Rick stopped taking a salary from Saddleback Church.

C) They paid back all that the church had paid in salary over 25 years.

D) They set up 3 Foundations: one to help people with HIV/AIDS, one to continue to train leaders around the world, and one for the global P.E.A.C.E plan.

More Critics
This article is completely one sided and it is unacceptable how no one is challenging it.


 * You are entitled to your opinion. No one's asking you to pal around with Rick Warren.  What you state is news to me.  I'd love to see the citations from what you say. . . so let's see 'em, you of only one edit (I've checked)!  --avnative 04:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing I am guilty of is maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia site. If someone comes to this site wanting to read about Rick Warren they deserve to hear all sides, Not Just Yours. So instead of replacing other peoples information with whatever biases you may have, maybe be a little more objective in your writing and be sympathetic to the fact that you may not have all the answers.


 * I do very much appreciate a citation such as what was just added from another perspective. That's what I was looking for!  I never said I had all the answers. . . and believe it or not, I have a high interest in maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia site as well.  Yes, I admit to having biases. . . that's the nature of fallen humanity, of which you and I are a part of.  However, with all due respect, I have contributed to this article with as unbiased an eye as I know how (and in the wide diverse groups I deal with on a regular basis, I am not known as a biased person).


 * It's fair IMHO to have a paragraph on detractors/critics of Rick Warren. Everyone has 'em.  But to make the article tilt in content towards his detractors, especially without sources cited, is out of line, IMHO.  He generally has a favorable acceptance within a variety of Christian groups, and unless that changes (major scandal or the like) the balance of article content I think is best to stay as it now is - with your recent input and mine (and other reputable Wikipedians).  This is a collaborative article, and I look forward to working collaboratively with all reputable Wikipedians, regardless of their beliefs or lack of them.  So let's bury the hatchet, OK?  --avnative 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

P.E.A.C.E plan?
The "P.E.A.C.E." plan was just recently launched by Saddleback Church.

It is designed to address 5 different "global giants":


 * Spiritual Emptiness - P.lant churches
 * Egocentric Leaders - E.quip servant leaders
 * Extreme Poverty - A.ssist the poor
 * Disease - C.are for the sick
 * Illiteracy and lack of education - E.ducate the next generation

It currently involves litterally tens of thousands of people, and will eventually include millions. Just the number of people that are/will be affected and involed in the PEACE movement alone makes it very significant, so there should be something mentioned about it here, and/or on the Saddleback Church page, and the PEACE plan itself should have its own article. What title should it have?

See Talk:P.E.A.C.E. Plan. Andrewa 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious concerns with
Lists of purpose cause us to lose our delight and our enjoyment of God. We are to ultimately delight ourselves in what God has already done for us in Christ, not constantly delight ourselves in what we have done for God. - From The Person of Christ-Driven Life by Charles R. Biggs
 * Seeker Sensitive, Purpose Driven Churches
 * Rick Warren has let the WHOLE world know that he paid back his WHOLE salary back to Saddleback, that he "reverse tithes", pays 90% tithes instead of 10%, but how much money is he paid in "royalties" from the sale of all his Purpose Driven® trade marked products? One million a year? 20 million a year? If he gave 90% of one million dollars he would still be making $100,000 dollars a year. A nice income! If he gave 90% on say $20,000,000 million a year he would make $2,000,000 a year which is a very tidy sum of money for one family indeed! He was given a tax free housing allowance from Saddleback, has he paid all that back as well? Does he still claim that tax free housing allowance each year? Why let every one know that he drives a four year old vehicle, is that supposed to make him sound humble or something? Rick Warren is always boasting in what he is doing. Why let the whole world know about the three foundations he and his wife Kay set up? What's that prove? Does he get tax breaks from them as well? Does he let everyone know about *ALL* the other "perks" he receives? Like flights all over the world? His trips to Africa and England and where ever? Tanks full of petrol for their vehicles, including his wifes?


 * Warren calls SBC withdrawal from BWA a 'silly' mistake, but in actual fact it wasn't, and so he writes out a $25,000 dollar check for the "BWA" letting everyone know he has done so and goes on in the article about all the other things he does and how well he and his products are doing! It says in the article above: "Fielding a question about claims that The Purpose Driven Life comes across as an adulation of men, Warren responded, “I don’t know how it could be an adulation of man when the first sentence of the book is, ‘It’s not about you.’ The whole book is, ‘It is all about God.’“" He is not telling the truth because on un-numbered page 5 of "The Purpose Driven Life"tm he says: "This book is dedicated to you." From there on in it IS all about you, how to find your S.H.A.P.E., your purpose, your life metaphor, not missing the point of your life, how to be guided to greatness, God's amazing plan for you-both here and now, and for eternity, the blueprint for Christian living in the 21st century so on and so forth. The book is all about finding YOUR purpose but he says it is God's purpose for your life. At the end of each chapter Rick Warren has put a box with the Day number and underneath, these words: "Thinking About My Purpose." Not "Thinking About God's Purpose/Purposes" but "Thinking About My Purpose." Even though Rick Warren says it is not about you, the whole book is centered around YOU and what God can do for YOU. YOU, is the central character mentioned throughout the book, far more than God or the LORD Jesus Christ. The whole book is focused on man and what God can do for man.

There is no clear presentation of the gospel in any of Rick Warren's writings or videos or audios. There is no teaching of those who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, trials and tribulations in Rick Warren's messages. There is no denying of self, dying to self and taking up your cross in Rick Warren's teachings. There is no warning to flee the wrath of God that is coming in Rick Warren's preaching. He not only preaches another gospel which is no gospel at all, he doesn't preach the gospel at all!

He posts on his own website those who give him glory and praise in what he is doing and what a Mr. all-round-nice-guy he is but he does not let a soul know that he HAS twisted and tortured and distorted God's Holy Word, some verses taken completely out of context and even shortened and the use of paraphrases that are just plain wrong. He has craftily used proof texts to prop up his own interpretations and ideas, using 15 or so translations and paraphrases.


 * References to Rick Warren's ministry in the Media:


 * The Weekly Standard - "...clearly among the two or three most influential Americans working from the West Coast." (Jan. 29, 2003)


 * Books and Culture - "Rick Warren's Saddleback is America's most fascinating megachurch." Alan Wolfe, Boisi Center for American Public Life (Dec. 2003)
 * Forbes - "Were it a business, Saddleback Church would be compared with Dell, Google or Starbucks." (Feb 16, 2004)
 * Christianity Today - named Warren "The Most Influential Pastor in America." (Cover story, Nov. 8, 2002)
 * Fox News - "Warren's 40 Days of Purpose has sparked a nationwide spiritual revival... It has given churches a strategy for reaching the disenchanted." (Nov. 19, 2003)
 * Denver Post - "Purpose Driven Life: The book that inspired a movement." (Front page, Nov.3, 2003)
 * New Man Magazine -"The most influential pastor in America." (Cover, Feb. 2003)
 * Church Executive Magazine - "# 8 in a list of the 50 Most Influential Christians in America" - after President Bush, Attorney Gen. Ashcroft, Justice O'Connor, Billy Graham.
 * Ministries Today - "One of 20 Top Influencers of the Church Today." (Jan. 2003)

I thought when one gives or does something as a Christian that this is what the attitude should be:

“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” – Matthew 6:1-4

Has Rick Warren been blowing his own trumpet so loudly for so long that people have become deaf?

Does Rick Warren give all the glory to God alone?


 * SEEKER SENSITIVE.COM
 * Purpose Verses
 * The Purpose Driven Church and Life
 * Biblically Speaking Essays on the Church Growth Movement
 * Slice of Laodicea Categories: Christian Women, Church Growth, Crosstalk, Emergent Church, Excellent Articles, Excellent Sermons, General News, Lord's Day, Mega Church Blasphemy, Merchandising of Christ, New Spirituality, Outrageous, Persecuted Church, Purpose Driven Madness, Remnant Encouragement, The Christian Life.

To the post above: what the FOXTROT?
Where is the basis for these so-called 'allegations' of yours? Do you have any proof other than the fact that Rick Warren isn't a fascist like yourself?

I'll admit, I have been very disgusted with Christianity for a while now, but people like Rick give me hope that maybe, just MAYBE, God doesn't hate me. It is people like you who make me think otherwise.

Anyway, that being said, maybe we need to clean up this article just a little bit for visual reasons, and possibly remove some minor POV things, but to be honest this article is not horridly biased, only a bit so.

Tobias 04:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism should apply to Warren's church
The following quote was removed:
 * "Of all the trends I've observed, the explosion of the "seeker"-centered megachurches is one of the most disturbing. Mega- churches in America have become absurd to the point where satire is almost impossible. Starbucks franchises and Christian tattoo parlors are now on church property. Rappers, hula praise dancers, contortionists, acupuncturists, liposuctionists, the side show of evangelicalism has an ever expanding cast of performers. The future of evangelicalism is here and it comes as an Elvis impersonator. Worse, in a quest for what's real, false teaching is entering through the traditions of the East, like meditation and yoga in the new Emergent church movement." - Slice of Laodicea

This quote does not describe Warren's church. There are no tattoo parlors or contortionists or acupunturists or even liposuctionists on the church property. They do have a coffee shop but I don't believe it is a Starbucks franchise. Although Starbucks is including a quote from The Purpose-Driven Life book on their coffee cups. RonCram 22:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I know for a fact there are no franchises, tattoo parlors, contortionists, acupuncturists, liposuctionists, etc. at Rick's church. It sounds like this was written by someone who is obviously jealous of Rick's positive influence around the globe; and they are just trying to discourage people from seeing the great things this man has accomplished. (User Angepud. 07/08/06)

Copyright violation
Large parts of the text of this articles are taken straight from http://www.rickwarren.com/. That is a clear copyright violation. This article is in need of severe redacting. &mdash; Kbh3rd talk 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please be specific? There is a procedure to follow for copyvios.


 * The link you quote is to the front page of a website, with very little text on that particular page. Large parts isn't a lot to go on so far as searching the site is concerned.


 * Please identify a specific section of text from the article (or more than one if you like), and a specific URL (not an entire website) from which the text is copied. I'll take it from there. Andrewa 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The original version was a lot more blatantly plagiarized. The current version has been incrementally improved upon and cleaned up. Check out the January 13, 2006 version (for example) and you'll see that it is a word-for-word reproduction fo the right-hand column below. 207.166.216.49 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Had the correct procedures been followed at that time or earlier when the copyvios were first noticed, it would have been a lot easier to deal with it. Because they were not, we may now need to leave the copyvios in the history unless issued with a takedown order. Andrewa 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can start with this table. Some other paragraphs ("mentors ...") sound as if they came from elsewhere, too.  --Kbh3rd talk  21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! May I assume these are the best examples you have?


 * In general I'd beware of paragraphs that just sound like they came from somewhere else. This is sometimes true, but it's based on the assumption that people who write things like this never contribute to Wikipedia, which is IMO quite obviously false. If the original author is the contributor, of course there's no copyvio.


 * I regard these three as borderline. There is some rephrasing, but not enough I agree. And there is every possibility that the web page owners would approve of the text being used here anyway. But agree they need follow up and I will - not quite sure how at this stage. Andrewa 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not borderline, blatant. Changing or omitting a word here or there doesn't sidestep copyright.  I agree that the owners would likely approve of the text, but that assumption is not sufficient justification for appropriating the property of others.  Permission must be requested and obtained. --Kbh3rd talk  10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had no reply to an email sent when you first provided these specific examples, so I've had a go at rephrasing the first of them. Remember, information can't be copyrighted, that's basic to Wikipedia. There's really very little in this paragraph other than the information. So all I've been able to do is to change a few more words. (And so I still really can't see this as a blatant copyvio problem.)


 * Comments on the new version welcome. If it's acceptable to you, we can go on to the next example. Andrewa 12:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think these are all now dealt with. Feel free to rephrase more thoroughly if you feel it is warranted - without removing content preferably! 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)