|
[ Home ] [ Our Islam Commentaries ] [ About Us ] [ Zionist Enemy of Islam ] [ Press Releases ] [ Our Public Discussions ] [ Our Media Gallery ] [ Our Islam Resources ] [ bin Laden's Letter ] [ Glossary of Terms ] [ Iraq's Constitution ] [ On Jonathan Pollard ] [ On Kfar Tapuach ] [ Lying for Allah ] [ Muslim Hate Prayers ] [ The Road Map ] [ Wascally Wahhabis ] [ 9-11 Commission ] [ Fallen Soldiers ] [ Charles Welty's Ameristan™ ] [ George Bakalov's Middle bEast blog ] [ Jayna Davis ] [ Dr. Paul Eidelberg ] [ Isaac Kohn ] [ Laura Mansfield ] [ Nissan Ratzlav-Katz ] [ Bernard Shapiro ] [ Paula Stern ] [ Stuck Mojo ] [ Believe it or Else... ] [ Christ & Muhammad ] [ Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an ] [ Recognizing Terrorists ] [ Slice of Laodicea ] [ Our Privacy Policy ] [ Our Terms of Use ] [ We Get Letters... ]
Letters about Understanding the Times
Originally Published
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Co-published by
the Orange County Register
 ur
Islam Commentary for 10 December 2006 discussed southern
California Pastor Rick Warren's unwise visit (on behalf of his 14,000+
member Saddleback Valley Community Church, ostensibly a Southern
Baptist franchise) with various Syrian officials in November 2006.
All of the respondents to that op-ed piece who admit to being
affiliated with Saddleback Church—there was not
even one exception—proved
themselves to be name-calling, vindictive, abusive, and angry examples
of the worst that Jesus Christ has to offer. So much for their
preaching the Gospel of Peace...
In citing the emails
below pursuant to our Terms of Use,
I've provided my line-by-line responses to the relevant portions of
the emails, citing portions of the original emails sent. They're
listed in reverse order in which they were received. The most current
is at the top, the first one received is at the bottom. Text written
by the writer of the original email is in blue type. Mine's in black. Enjoy...
Table of Contents
10. Beth Green
9. Paula Moore
8. Francis Gordon
7. Gary Weigel
6. Tim Stone #2
5. Jim McGregor
4. Dori Nordeck
3. Tim Stone #1
2. Tom Barrett
1. Gordon Reed
 Beth
Green: Rick Warren
(12 December 2006 7:35am)
Your
article, "Dec.
10: Warren misreads the signs of our times"
stated very clearly and persuasively the very same problems I have with
Rick Warren and his recent embrace of all things political.
Particularly troublesome is Mr. Warren's "replacement theology" and lack
of knowledge regarding Israel and her importance in the end times. His
statements on Syria were appalling but equally so is his political
summits now held at this church. Mr. Warren's new religion seems to no
longer be Christianity but a political, social gospel. It is
interesting at this season that as the Jews of old were also looking for
a political, social solution to their problems that thousands of years
later, Mr. Warren who knows the truth, has chosen not to follow the
truth but instead looked for a worldly remedy to a spiritual problem.
Oh, no! You ruined
the record. You and Paula Moore said I was right!
Back to top.
Paula
Moore: Re: Warren's Visit
(12 December 2006 7:32am)
Rick Warren needs to keep up to date on more than the situation in the
Mideast. My church did a study on Purpose Driven Life, in small groups.
I could not teach big parts of Warren's book to my group, and
substituted mini Bible studies. Warren's statements were misleading, and
twisted. It was very simple to come to Jesus in his video, just say a
few words, nothing much about repenting or sin, and presto, there you
are. . As far as I can tell, he has fallen prey to satan's temptations
to elevate himself in every area he can. Warren and his ilk want a one
world puffy, simplistic, and worldly religion, interspersed with a few
Bible verses.
That does it. Guess I'm not visiting that place, after all.
I do not know if you are familiar with sliceoflaodicea.com,
Nope. Not as of this minute. But
I'm going to become familiar with them, starting right now...
a Christian blog, with many posts from Discernment Ministries. It is a
credible site which gives one the big picture of what is going on in the
Emergent ministries area today. It is appalling that so many have been
so blind and so fooled. My personal observation is that little deep
Bible Study is offered in churches these days, and unequipped folks fall
prey to unbiblical teachings very easily.
Meanwhile, the love of many grows
cold, as was predicted...
Back to top.
Francis
Gordon: On Rick Warren
(12 December 2006 5:21am)
I totally agree with
you about Mr Warren. The same applies, and very much so, to Pres Jimmy
Carter. He has got to be a one of the most confused men of our time or
simply very evil. I hope you do an article on him.
Well now, I'll be getting around to
commenting about Mr. Carter -- again -- shortly on our Islam
Commentaries.
Back to top.
Gary
Weigel: Warren and You
(11 December 2006 5:57pm and
at 6:00pm)
Assume I am not an
anti-semite,
Uh, sorry. Too late. You are an anti-Semite.
but what has Isreal and our judeo brothers and sisters done for us
lately???? Do you see any muslims demanding we tear down christmas trees
and crosses????
You got me there. Conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims
don't demand we tear down Christmas trees and crosses. Conservative,
Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims tear down churches and behead their
members when they don't convert to Islam. But you're right here, I've
never met a conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslim who only tears
down Christmas trees and crosses.
When the leadership in California decide that criminals should be
pampered, do the names of the politicians end with ammed or stein?
I wouldn't know. I'm not anti-Semitic enough to have noticed of
late...
I feel after years of watching our judeo-christian ethic become one that
is merely one sided (judeo sided) I think a change in the wind would be
nice, Who decided its judeo-christian vs islamo-christian???? I cannot
find it in the bible and in many cases I feel the muslims are more on a
christians side than our jewish brothers could ever be.
Jesus never died on the cross. Somebody took his place. God has
no son. Jews are descendants of pigs and monkeys. So teaches the
theology of conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims. You are
uneducated at best.
Anyway maybe Rick is merely starting a trend that should have been
started years ago.
Or more likely he's a Laodicean-type pastor whose church is so
far removed from a biblical pattern that, like his Book of Revelation
namesake, Jesus is standing outside of his own church, knocking at the
door.
And this comes from a lifetime judeo christian right wing member of the
GOP who is starting to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, WHAT HAS AN ISREALI OR MY
JUDEO BROTHERS DONE FOR ME LATELY.
Three minutes later, at 6:00pm he wrote:
What bothers me is if you look at the history of anything against isreal
or judism, its always those pesky christians that seem to come to their
aid.
When enough people have joined the ranks of conservative,
Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims, you won't have to worry about the pesky
Christians. They'll all be dead.
Ya know us xmas tree lovong christians. maybe, I feel its time for us to
sit back and let things happen to the jews and not help them out. I am
not an anti-semite, just a good chrisitan
The hell you are.
that feels at little gratiitude would be nice and since this is a
judeo-christian country maybe jews should relax alittle. Or maybe we
should become an islamo-christian country instead...and maybe not send
any money to isreal for a while. I know a few christians living in musim
countries. Yes there are restrictions but none of them have had a xmas
tree tore down during the xmas time while in Iran and Indonessia.
Hmmm. Can't spell worth a damn. Too lazy to use a spell checker. Not
worth wasting my time rebutting.... Oh well, too bad I already
responded.
Back to top.
Tim
Stone: Reply
to Referral
(11 December 2006 10:56pm,
8:09am)
So, you sent a letter to
the church and you think that excuses your behavior. It seems to me
there are 3 steps. First you go to the man directly. That does not
indicate a letter is acceptable. Secondly, you go to the person
with a group of other church leaders. Finally, you bring your
concern before the congregation. None of this was followed.
You are not aware
of what actually took place on that trip. You were not there, and
you did not spend quality time with anyone who did participate in
the trip. And please don't tell me
what the Syrian press reported. I can take any event, and look
at 6 different media reports on it, and have 6 different views. Most people assume that none of the reports are exactly accurate.
What I find truly
interesting is that you choose to be critical of this mission as if
it somehow harmed our government and yet no members of the
administration have been critical of what took place, or what was
said. Yes, I find your
article, and defensiveness, to be most unfortunate. However, the
Lord continues to bless the work of the SVCC ministry, and the
vision He has laid on Pastor Rick, even in light of assaults by
those who would really don't know the truth. SVCC is a place where
lives change, and where people have opened their hearts to others
around the globe, and followed this with personal activities to
provide assistance where it is truly needed. Again, I invite you to
see what is really happening at SVCC.
Wisdom is justified of her children; i.e.,
there's no point in answering foolishness. Notice, won't you please,
that not one of the writers dealt with the facts of the op-ed piece...
Back to top.
Jim
McGregor: Warren misreads
(10 December 2006 10:56pm)
Jesus did not rail against the
Roman barbarism.
Neither did I -- uh,
unless your belief is that Dr. Warren is a Roman barbarian. Then I
plead guilty as charged...
In deed His wrath was reserved for the
heresy of the religious leaders of the time.
You mean like pastors
of Laodicean-like churches located in Orange County, California whose
senior pastor is ignorant of issues related to conservative,
Wahhabi-type, radical Islam? I've got news for you. Every
pastor in Christ's seven letters to his churches had underestimated
the true state of their maturity, usefulness, and godliness. All of
them. Especially the pastor who said his church was rich, increased
with goods, and had no need of anything.
He associated with those they hated,
Samaria, tax collectors and sinners. He said he did not “come to
call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
So? This has nothing to
do with the op-ed piece. Unless you mean that Dr. Warren needs to
repent of his naivete. I concur with this view.
The Romans tyranny was in fact Judas’
stumbling block. He betrayed himself by allowing his ideology, his
dogma, to trump his faith.
By this you mean that
Judas inserted his political world view into the message of Jesus and
fell away when it didn't fit? Sounds like that's exactly what
Warren is doing with having pro-Abortionists like Obama share his
speaker's platform (I won't insult real preachers by calling it a
pulpit) or saying Syria's brand of Islam practices freedom of
religion.
He neither had ears to hear nor eyes to
see.
Given the vehemence of
the responses to the op-ed piece that I've received from those who,
like you, appear to attend Saddleback Church or who are non-attending
supporters of its pastor, your allusion to not having ears to hear nor
eyes to see fits the decidedly non-Christlike attitudes of the
responders to the op-ed piece. Every one of them -- all of them
-- have been filled with hate. Not one -- yours included --
was, to use the New Testament term, seasoned with salt.
Based on your plethora of illogical
syllogisms
Syllogisms? Illogical?
I can't have been that confusing in 600 words. You didn't
bother to read it carefully.
Read it again.
and your hear say,
Hearsay? I documented
every point with a citation to a document. The link to our Islam
Commentaries page in my previous response line immediately above
will give you the citations.
you have publicly called pastor Rick
naive and a liar.
No. I've only called
him naive. Joseph Farah called him a liar. Please get your accusations
straight. Take up the lie issue with Mr. Farah.
By reference you have called his
ministry a lie.
Actually, it was Mr.
Farah who did that. Again, please write to him about that.
Get behind ma Satin.
Huh? Did you mean "Get
behind me, Satan."? If so, it's clues like the above that make me
suspect that you must attend Saddleback Church. That's because I've
yet to receive a single email from a Saddleback devotee that has even
a passing acquaintance with biblical teachings, let alone with how to
spell the word "Satan".
Back to top.
Dori
Nordeck: Re: Warren Misreads
(10 December 2006 4:58pm)
You 'misread' Rick
Warren.
Sadly, I didn't misread him. His actions spoke for themselves.
Poorly.
Your article was
pompous.
Well now, you must be one of the Saddleback members or attendees. I
surmise this because all -- there has been not even one
exception -- of the respondents to that op-ed piece who are affiliated
with Saddleback Church have been name-calling, vindictive, abusive,
and angry examples of the worst that Jesus Christ has to offer. By the
fruit of his teachings -- his followers, for example -- I see what a
poor church Saddleback must be. They think they're rich, but don't
know that they're wretched and poor and blind and naked. See
Revelation 3 for highlights about this. Your words above and below are
excellent examples of why Christ is not believed on in the world. I
cannot see through your anger to see Him.
Do your homework.
I did. Go to
http://wnd.com and use their search engine for "Rick Warren" and
you'll find the documentation for everything I wrote. It's all true.
Every word of it.
You have lots of
titles after your name, very arrogantly.
No. Just very factually. They were earned after years of work.
You basically make no
sense unless you are appealing to your probably 'egghead'
comrades.
I appeal only to those who know how to think.
You are political, to
say the least, Warren is not.
Then he should stay out of the offices of politicians. Particularly
those occupied by conservative, Wahhabi-type radical Muslims like
Syria's president. And Warren needs to keep them (like Mr. Obama) off
his speaker's platform (I'm not so stupid as to call the thing a
pulpit). And you're blind enough to say Warren's not political? Ha!
He is purpose
driven,
It might be nicer if he were driven to glorify God. The two goals
are not the same thing. But, I don't expect blind followers of his
Laodicean drivel to figure that out. Let the blind lead the blind.
and cares about the
human race, and the consequences in a very simple and loving way.
Go to one of his services, sir, and you might get it.
What? And get entertained by evangelical-lite drivel wrapped in a
seeker-sensitive package? No thanks. I would rather attend an al-Qaeda
block party.
You are nothing but a
wind-bag. Prove you're not.
Hmmm. It's difficult to prove a negative. It might be nice if you
and every other attendee of Saddleback Church could prove to me that
they're Christians. I can't see through the anger to see. You're a
really good example of this.
The only way this
country is going to make it after all the mistakes made by the
power political people is through someone like him,
By someone who says religious freedom exists in Syria for
Christians and Jews. Puh-leeeze....
although you declare
him ignorant in your own way.
He is ignorant. In his own way. Which is world-class, by the
way. Ignorant, that is.
He's trying to help in
his own way. What about you?
Hmmm. I wonder if Dr. Warren has received more than 14,000 death
threats from Muslims, like I did, for equipping people to defend
against conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Islam? (See
http://islamcommentaries.com) No? I didn't think so.
Drivel. You don't
even sound good on paper. Go pick on someone who's evil.
The Muslims who've threatened my life are Christ-like in comparison
to Saddleback attendees. Dr. Warren should be proud of you. Very
proud. I'll think about sending him your email. I'm definitely sending
it to the Register.
Back to top.
Tim
Stone: Referral
from your Web Site
(10 December 2006 1:32pm)
Your article in the
Register today was most unfortunate.
No, Mr.
Warren's behavior was what was unfortunate.
Rick Warren is a
Pastor, and his trip to Syria was in that capacity. Did you take
the time to discuss this trip with him prior to writing your
article ? Did you ask about his visits to Christian sites, or the
information he received on the functioning of the Christian church
in Syria ? DID YOU GO TO THE SOURCE ????? If you truly believe
in following scriptural directives, you certainly would have met
with Rick personally before ever even considering writing that
article.
The gist of your email,
including this unwise statement, assumes I haven't attempted to
contact him "directly" in the past, to use your phrase. Or at least
doubts that I did. Do read the op-ed piece again. You'll note in
re-reading it that nothing in the piece says I have never contacted
him. As a matter of historical record, I have attempted to contact him
in the recent past by a letter mailed to the Saddleback Church. A
lower level staff member eventually responded, and the correspondence
made it clear that neither Dr. Warren or he had read anything other
than the subject line in the original letter.
So much for Matthew 18 and one-on-one dialogue. The next step in
Matthew 18 was to go public, as Matthew's exhortation notes. The op-ed
piece is the result of that obedience to Matthew 18. In this case,
since the sphere of Dr. Warren's offense against common sense and the
signs of the times was public, my rebuke to Dr. Warren is just as
public. Say, like Christ rebuked the Pharisees, for example, since the
sphere of rebuke is to match the sphere of offense. In this case,
since Warren's ill-advised behavior was public, so was his rebuke.
Think of Nathan rebuking David. I don't suppose you think Nathan
disobeyed Matthew 18, do you? I was right to rebuke the man publicly,
because he was wrong to be so naive.
I believe Rick would
make it clear that affairs of state are best left to
representatives of our government.
Funny thing, though. He obviously didn't communicate that to the Syrian
press...
As stated recently to
his congregation, his trips are pastoral visits, and he will
travel wherever invited as a pastor. He was certainly no
substitute, as you stated, for the Secretary of State or any State
Department official.
Agreed. So? I'm not dealing with his motives or intent. I'm dealing with
his actions and the effect of those actions.
I find it quite sad
that those who are not involved with SVCC and its ministry are so
anxious to speak negatively as experts on what this congregation
should be doing.
I make no statement
about what the congregation of SVCC is doing or should be doing. I
inspected the fruit of the behavior of the pastor, and find it
inadequate on several levels. These are not the same things.
It is clear, however,
that this conservative, evangelical, and growing community of
believers called Saddleback Church will continue to step out in
faith in an attempt to spread the true meaning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.
Would you mind
explaining to me -- precisely -- how this sophomoric meeting
spreads the true meaning of the Gospel? Warren said nothing about
having personally shared Christ with even one of the 3 leaders noted
in the op-ed piece. So don't confuse the issue. This isn't about the
gospel and its "true meaning", whatever you mean by that dangerous
phrase. It's about being wise and understanding the times. Dr. Warren
is not being wise and understanding in how he approaches the Syria
issue.
I'd encourage you to
spend some quality time with this congregation before you write
any more articles about its pastor.
No, thanks. You
presumed I've never tried to meet with him. The truth is, I offered to
meet him at one time, and he refused. I fulfilled my biblical
obligation, so there's no point in talking to him about the Syria
meeting any other way than publicly.
Back to top.
Tom
Barrett: Abuse
Warren Privately (10 December 2006, 12:43pm)
I'm assuming you
take God's Word seriously.
I do. It's really too bad that Dr. Warren doesn't. And, given the
presuppositions of your email, I have my doubts about you, too. More
on that, below. Meanwhile, what is this subject line "Abuse Warren
Privately" about? Nothing in my op-ed piece was an abuse, either
publicly or privately. A rebuke? Yes. But abuse? Never. The op-ed
piece was, I'll admit, a call to public accountability.
As such, if you
have something against a brother you should go to him directly, not
in a public newspaper --
The gist of your email,
including this unwise statement, assumes I haven't attempted to
contact him "directly" in the past, to use your phrase. Do read the
op-ed piece again. You'll note in re-reading it that nothing in the
piece says I have never contacted him. As a matter of historical
record, I have attempted to contact him in the recent past by a
letter mailed to the Saddleback Church. A lower level staff member
eventually responded, and the correspondence made it clear that
neither Dr. Warren or he had read anything other than the subject
line in the original letter. So much for Matthew 18 and one-on-one
dialogue. The next step in Matthew 18 was to go public, as Matthew's
exhortation notes. The op-ed piece is the result of that obedience
to Matthew 18. In this case, since the sphere of Dr. Warren's
offense against common sense and the signs of the times was public,
my rebuke to Dr. Warren is just as public. Say, like Christ rebuked
the Pharisees, for example, since the sphere of rebuke is to match
the sphere of offense. In this case, since Warren's ill-advised
behavior was public, so was his rebuke. Think of Nathan rebuking
David. I don't suppose you think Nathan disobeyed Matthew 18, do
you? I was right to rebuke the man publicly, because he was wrong to
be so naive.
especially not
in a mocking way.
Mocking? I never mocked. I was
very serious. I still am. I was right, he was wrong, and that's
final. The man is unrepentant, and was used as a patsy by the Syrian
news agency.
You are not God,
humble yourself!
You are arrogant. You presumed
I've never tried to meet with him. The truth is, I offered to meet
him at one time, and he refused. I fulfilled my biblical obligation,
so there's no point in talking to him about the Syria meeting any
other way than publicly. The one who needs to be rebuked is Dr.
Warren.
Thank you for
listening.
Thank you for illustrating
Christian naiveté. Go do your homework, and become knowledgeable of
the times, like 1 Chronicles 12's comment about the 200
Issacharites. Like Warren, your note is out of protocol, out of
school, and way out of place.
Back to top.
Gordon
Reed: On Rick
Warren
(10 December 2006, 9:18am)
I do not know much about Rick Warren
but I do not think your lambasting of Syria is helpful.
Me? Lambaste Syria?
Nothing in the op-ed piece was a lambaste by me against Syria. The
material about Syria was a factual statement from Dr. Ehrlich
of the ICT.
Warren did what our
country should do and that is talk to Syria instead of demonizing
it.
You show your ignorance
of conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Islam, which does not respect
dialog over force.
We continue to support
a brutal Israeli occupation which is the chief cause of unrest in
the Middle East.
Chief cause? Not
hardly. 5 million Jews vs. 300 million Muslims surrounding them.
Israel's the aggressor? No way. You need to do some homework.
You might want to add
Jimmy Carters' new book to your reading list.
You mean the one that
is now known to have been plagiarized? No thanks.
Back to top.
|
