Rick Warren Signs on to Ascol’s Resolution

Tim Brister —  May 16, 2008

Comment number 101 on Tom Ascol’s resolution on regenerate church membership comes from a Southern Baptist we all know.  In fact, some really admire him; others have dedicated their blogs to expressing their grief over him.  Some fundies are having a cow, while other Southern Baptists are encouraged by the broad support as seen in the public endorsement of Tom’s resolution (for the record, I find myself in the second camp).  Who is it that I am talking about? 

Rick Warren.

In the comments section of Tom’s blogpost, Warren writes the following:

Hi Tom!
I have been personally urging the adoption of a resolution on Membership like yours for over 20 years. I hope it passes. The restoration of the integrity of membership is an absolute foundation to the spiritual health of a congregation.

Saddleback’s membership class, our covenant, and the accountability to it are the secrets behind our members willingness to sacrifice to reach people for Christ. Imagine a church that went 15 years without a building, setting up and tearing down a church for 10,000 people (at that time in the 90s) week after week, regardless of weather. The way you bring members in is the level of commitment they will live up to.

Most people have no idea- zero- of what is Saddleback Church is really like. They have bought into all the stupid misinformation that circulates on the internet, and in books by people who aren’t even believers and have never even talked to me.

The fact is, for 28 years, from the first day of our chuch, we have dilligently practiced church discipline, used the historic Baptist practice of covenants (we have 4, including a membership covenant), have a required membership class, and have graduated over 15,000 members through a six month Systematic Theology course called “Foundations.” I would match any 1,000 members of Saddleback to any 1,000 members of any other church in terms of spiritual maturity, godliness, Scriptures memorized, serving in ministry, and doing missions around the world.

We take membership extremely seriously at Saddleback Church, and people who don’t abide by the covenant are disciplined and removed. We have no such thing as “inactive or non-resident membership” which is a contradiction.

People probably also don’t know that during the past 10 years, most churches were plateaued or declining, we’ve baptized over 20,000 NEW adult believers, put 28,000 studing the Bible weekly in 3,400 small groups, and sent 7,766 of our members to evangelize and plant churches overseas in 68 countries. There’s not another church in America with a more mature membership. It’s because we stress covenants!

Never believe second- hand sources about Saddleback. They are ALWAYS wrong.

By the way, I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am a Kuyper-Calvinist! Abraham Kuyper was right about so much. You can see his influence all through Purpose Driven Life. (smile)

Years ago, you may remember a lecture by Mark C at a SBC Founder’s Breakfast that compared the similarities between the “the children of Spurgeon and the children of Warren.” I got a kick out of that lecture since my great Grandfather was led to Christ by Spurgeon, went to Spurgeon’s College, and then was sent by Spurgeon to America to plant churches. I have Spurgeon’s handwritten sermons framed on my office walls- passed down from 4 generations of pastors! Another little known fact is that another part of my spiritual heritage is that my namesake Pilgrim ancestor, Richard Warren, came over on that little boat, the Mayflower to escape religious persecution.

Please forgive any typos in this. I don’t usually participate in blogs but I care deeply about this issue, and so I typed this out quickly.

God bless!

Rick Warren
Saddleback Church

Share Button
Print Friendly

46 responses to Rick Warren Signs on to Ascol’s Resolution

  1. Why, if he supports the resolution so much did he spend the majority of his post patting Saddleback on the back? It just appeared to be very self-serving than supportive of what is trying to be accomplished throughout the convention. It sounded more like a defense of Saddleback than the resolution.

  2. David,
    With a comment like yours, is it any wonder hr felt the need to defend himself when posting on a Reformed blog?

  3. Chris, David could have stated his comment with a little more grace, but did he say anything wrong??? I tend to agree with him! Not that I am in favor of bashing Rick, but it seems to me that he spent of lot of time validating his ministry with numbers and holding it as the “model church.”

    Either way I glad he supports the resolution, for good or for bad… (for good I hope)…

    Yogi

  4. Kris Harrison May 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Ok, I have to ask this. I read the post twice. Is this really Rick Warren. I found it hard to believe that Mr. Warren would visit a site such as founders.org. I have a feeling he doesn’t visit the site often.

    Anyways, this is my question,

    Was this really Rick Warren?

  5. To give him the benefit of the doubt he may have simply been listing the benefits of a committment to regenrate church membership.

  6. Kris,

    The answer to your question is yes. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but the circumstantial information Warren provided (such as the Founders Breakfast) in his own comment is accurate.

  7. Bob DeWaay’s book,”Redefining Christianity”could hardly be defined as “stupid information.”It is a book that deals fairly and accurately in understanding the purpose driven movement.In my opinion,Bob speaks the truth in love.I hope that many pastors will read this book.
    Bill

  8. It is worth nothing that John Hammett, prof at SEBTS, referenced Saddleback in his chapter on regenerate church membership (in the book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology) specifically with regards to chuch covenants and the recovery of RCM (other examples included Capitol Hill Baptist and I believe the standard covenant in Pendleton’s Baptist Manual).

    I tend to agree with Jamie here. Warren, for all the lambasting he gets from online pundits, has led his church to a high level of commitment and covenant within his membership that deserves our attention and commendation.

    Notice what I am saying here (versus what I am NOT saying). I am NOT saying that agree with Warren on everything (I don’t agree with Tom Ascol (the Mac evangelist) on everything! But I do agree with him on RCM. And on this issue, Calvinists, Kuyperian or not :), and non-Calvinists should come together, take a stand, and follow the lead of those who have already, or are currently practicing RCM.

  9. Hottub,

    Maybe so. But what do you think about Warren’s commitment to RCM? Could you provide a comment on topic?

  10. Should be mis-information,not information in my comment.
    bp

  11. Timmy,
    I commend Warren’s commitment to RCM.He is a diligent servant and a man of integrity.The concern that I have with Warren is what I consider to be his shallow presentation of the gospel.He may very well define the gospel correctly in private and to his congregation at Saddleback,but I fail to see it in his writings and in his Christmas television special.If I am wrong in my opinion,I will gladly repent if someone proves to me that Warren’s presentation of the gospel is indeed Biblical.
    bp

  12. I watched this yesterday; it’s about Rick Warren – from The Way of The Master Radio Program. (Tim I hope you don’t mind me posting this in you comments section…)

    This probably is exactly what Hottub is concerned with!

    Yogi

  13. Timmy,

    I love this. It is sad and ridiculous that people are still slamming Warren on this post when he is supporting what most of them agree with! Why are people slamming Warren on issues that have nothing to do with this post? Warren’s church does practice better church discipline and regenerate membership than most churches. Including the churches of the people slamming him on this post!

    I am impressed and happy to see Warren take this step!

    Matt

  14. Yogi,

    I am not going to argue with the fact that I/we have disagreements with Rick Warren. I certainly could list my own (his gospel presentation in the 40 Days of Purpose on Week 1 being one of them). With that said, the point of this post is to pile on Warren on all the things we *disagree* with him about; rather, it is to come together around what we *agree* on, viz., regenerate church membership. In principle and in practice in this area, we have more in common with Warren than the majority who are the leading talking heads of the Conservative Resurgence.

    There are dozens of blogs who get their daily devotion, er, daily attack on Rick Warren. I prefer to not be named among them. So while I sympathize and agree in general with your concerns and disagreements, in an attempt to hold to the integrity of this discussion and the topic on which it is focused, I will refrain from tangential discussions.

  15. Timmy,
    I appreciate your spirit and your blog.However,I am puzzeled that you andMatt seem to imply that if we can “agree”on a Regenerated church membership it doesn’t matter that we disagree on the gospel.
    Matt,I did not “slam”Warren.I doubt seriously if you know whether or not I have practised church disiipline in my Pastorate .As a matter of fact I have at a great cost.
    bp

  16. Hottub,

    I am not saying that our disagreements don’t matter, nor am I accusing you of slamming Warren. What I do know is that Warren is on the receiving end of more frontal attacks than any evangelical or Southern Baptist I know. I knew that posting his name on my blog would open the door for critics of every color and stripe to come out and express their disdain for him. All I am attempting to do is simply point out an area where we agree and emphasize that for once. That’s all. It is not an attempt to defend Warren on the areas where I or other people disagree with him.

    So much of Southern Baptist and evangelical life is what we are against. I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to Warren for not only being for regenerate church membership in theory but also in practice.

    As far as your practice of church discipline, I don’t know if I ever commented or insinuated that you didn’t practice it. Did I ever state or imply that in anything I said?

  17. Bro. Timmy,

    Is this the same Rick Warren that hands out condoms in Africa for the cure of AIDS? :P

    If it is, it is a HUGE oxymoron: A church that practices RCM distributes condoms to fight AIDS. :D

    Can a church that “supposedly” practices RCM really be taken seriously if it also is a condom distributor?

    Seriously Intrigued,
    chadwick

  18. If I came on too strong as I was accused of earlier, please know it was never my intent to do so. I have no desire to “bash” warren or anyone else. I stated what I simply thought was obvious. The majority of his post talked a great deal about what they are doing as opposed to the resolution at hand. My apologies to Mr. Warren and anyone else who may have been offended.

  19. Timmy,
    It was Matt who made the comment about “slamming”and I used his name.
    bp

  20. Warren supports Ascol’s resolution. Since Ascol usually comes across as one who has steeped himself in deep theological and Biblically derived processes it seems incongruous that a poorly derived purpose-driven (yes, I have actually read the books — painfully) theology bookwriter would attach himself to this resolution.

    In my opinion, the resolution loses credibility at this point.

    Ascol should consider withdrawing the resolution or asking Warren to remove his endorsement. Preferably the latter.

  21. As one who just learned of this site this morning I have read with interest the post here and the comments attatched to it. I have also gone to the Founders site and read the Ascol resolution and the comments there. I would also note that I am not a member of a Southern Baptist Church, although I have great sympathy for the SBC. I would identify with its structure and how it operates.

    I do find myself in a bit of a quandry with the Warren endorsement of this resolution. There is much in theory that he says that I suppose we would all agree with. Yet, as one whose church has been captured by the “Purpose Driven Movement” and methodology, I know from experience that what is set forth in theory and what is actually practiced are two differnt things. I have seen my family split, good people who have supported the church for decades driven out and I myself have been “pastorally” admonished to go somewhere else. All of this is done through the mechinism of covenants, committment, accountability and disipline in order to acheive the “unity” in the church that Warren makes so much of in his writings (I, too, have read them). This is a unity that is drawn not from the Bible but from the materials produced by Warren and the Purpose Driven approach. I guess my question to the men here is, How do you maintain a biblical theology of church membership and what happens when legitimate biblical principles are circumvented? How does one deal with the implementation of concepts that seem to be supported with Scripture yet become the means for subverting the local church and turning it in a direction that is at odds with what it was historically and theologically. While the language sounds good I must take Warren’s endorsement with a grain of salt. I have experienced firsthand how his concepts have been used by those who would seek to subvert the church and move it in directions directly antithetical to the first 120 years of its existence. Indeed, I would argue that what happens many times is that the door is opened in the implementation of Warren’s concepts of church membership, accountability, disipline, etc. for the abuse of the office of pastor and the implementation of an “authoritarianism” that runs counter to the biblical concept of shepherding. As an outsider I don’t want to inject myself into your debates. I will be praying for the meetings and discussions at your convention this summer. But I am not convinced that the “endorsement” posted by Warren is something that ought to be accepted as representing what I think you are attempting to accomplish in passing the resolution.

  22. Scott,

    So you are saying that a resolution such as proposed by Tom loses credibility in spite of the fact that Saddleback practices RCM?

    Hottub,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Chadwick,

    I am not sure that I see the relationship between fighting AIDS in Africa and RCM. Could you elaborate on that?

  23. Timmy,

    One word: CONDOMS.

    Africa’s problem with AIDS is multiple sexual partners: promiscuous sex.

    Warren (his church) is using worldy methods (using condoms) blended with the only Biblical solution: repentance from sexual promiscuity (this consists of abstinence and being faithful in a covenant marriage).

    It would be like you telling your youth group: “Kids, sex before (or outside) marriage is not acceptable to God . . . but if you can’t wait, please use a condom.”

    Biblical way to fight AIDS: A+B

    Unbiblical (Warren’s) way to fight AIDS: A+B+C

    Warren may have good orthodoxy (RCM) . . . but he has unbiblical orthopraxy (distribute condoms).

    Unless the orthopraxy is Biblical, the orthodoxy is useless.

    chadwick

  24. Tim,

    Point/admonishment well taken! I did not mean to compromise the integrity of this discussion and the topic on which it is focused. I was just expressing some thoughts of concern, my apologies!

    For the record, I am glad he supports the resolution. God Bless you brother.

    Yogi

  25. Tim:
    You said, “Warren, for all the lambasting he gets from online pundits, has led his church to a high level of commitment and covenant within his membership that deserves our attention and commendation.”

    What evidence do you have for the latitudinarian support of his brand of ecclesiology? How can you possibly have a regenerate church membership if one affirms a weak partial gospel like Warren has in the PDL material and from his pulpit? Have you ever heard Warren preach the biblical gospel before and not a watered-down version of the gospel? If so, could you please provide evidence of that here for all of us to hear or read.

    Rick’s support of Tom’s resolution is also troublesome in that Warren continues to foster unbiblical, unequally-yoked partnerships with nonbelievers in social/political causes such as ONE, Aids, Global Warming, etc. Case in point, his endorsing of and allowing Barack Obama to speak in his church on the AIDS issue was troubling to many of us who are reformed. Obama is also pro abortion, pro partial birth abortion, and he is also pro live abortion. He is also an active supporter of Planned Parenthood; and this is the kind of man Warren chooses to develop strategic allegiance with and whom you say we should commend for his support of the RCM resolution?

    I agree with Scott here. Tom should remove his name from the endorsement of this resolution. If it’s left on, it will seriously weaken the credibility of the resolution.

    Guard the Trust,
    Campi
    2 Cor. 6:14-7:1

  26. Clarification for my last statment: ABC AIDS Prevention:
    A- abstinence
    B- being faithful
    C- condoms

    AB- biblical
    ABC- unbiblical (Warren’s stance)

    chadwick

  27. Timmy,
    From an old Pastor.Please “kill”this thread.The majority of Southern Baptists,in my opinion,believe that doctrine matters.The first three chapters of Ephesians deal with doctrine.In chapter 4 Paul addresses “unity”.
    Anyone who reads Warren’s material will be hard pressed to find a clear Biblical presentation of the gospel.Our sovereign Lord did not die to meet our “felt”needs.Christ died to save sinners,not to “fix”us and make us feel better.
    If this commending Warren for his position on RCM continues it will only diminish and perhaps destroy Tom’s resolution on RCM.
    Bill

  28. Timmy,
    Indeed. The full package presented by Warren goes counter to the Biblical truths taught by Ascol, et al. One point of agreement amongst so many errors should not be the rallying call. If it is, as seems to be indicated here, then in my opinion, Ascol’s resolution loses force as a reasoned document based on Biblical truths. A & W is good root beer — not good religio-politics.

    In His Word,
    Scott

  29. Scott, Hottub, Campi, etc.

    If Rick Warren comes out for a resolution against abortion should we withdraw it? If he comes out for the deity of Christ should we somehow question our willingness to confess the same? Just because someone is in error on some things means that we should not allow them to stand with us on those things in which they are not in error? What is wrong with this picture? Warren (as many others in the SBC) does not deal with the gospel like I think is best, but I am not willing to pronounce an anathema on him as one who preaches “another gospel?” Are you? I don’t know most of the guys who have signed onto this resolution so I don’t know what they believe. I just know they are concerned about the SBC and believe this resolution is a step in the right direction. Why is anything more necessary? This kind of exclusivism is like what is coming from other places in the SBC and I like it no more in this forum than any other.

    Chadwick, are you actually saying that a person’s desire to fight AID’s IN AFRICA by providing condoms is worthy of separating from them? Your equating the situation in a church youth group with the situation in the culture of Africa is so out there I can’t believe you said it. Is anyone saying that Rick Warren is not teaching abstinence outside of marriage and faithfulness in marriage? Sometimes things are what they are and not what they should be. (Heb 5:12) That does not mean we do nothing until they get like they should be. I don’t know how you do everything in your church. It is just barely possible that I might think that you are guilty of non biblical orthopraxy in some area. I really can’t see how it would prove your doctrine incorrect — just your judgment. I just don’t see the validity of your reasoning at all and I sure can’t see what it has to do with Tom’s resolution.

    Timmy, keep the faith brother!

  30. Scotty,
    Yes I do believe that Warren preaches “another gospel.”
    bp

  31. Scotty,

    You stated:
    “are you actually saying that a person’s desire to fight AID’s IN AFRICA by providing condoms is worthy of separating from them?”

    Yes I do! Distributing condoms for the fight of AIDS is not based on the Gospel but the culture.

    The Gospel doesn’t change, depending on the cultural climate. Repentance should be preached in every culture . . . without adding condoms.

    The ABC approach to stop AIDS is based on reducing the epedemic, not glorifying God. God cannot be glorified in the distribution of condoms to pagans who are continuing in their ungodly fornication.

    I am not saying that Warren’s support will kill the resolution . . . I think Warren cannot be taken seriously.

    For example, what if Jimmy Carter signed on to the RCM resolution? That wouldn’t mean a hill of beans. It is the same with Warren.

    This is all I have to say on this subject.

    chadwick

  32. My final word on this issue:
    Four books that reveal Warren’s error in doctrine.
    1.The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren.
    2.Redefining Christianity.Bob DeWaay.
    3.The Old Testament.
    4.The New Testament.
    bp

  33. Scotty,
    Your example on only serves as a “case-study” deflection from the point of argumentation. The point remains that if Ascol allows Warren to “saddle” up with him, then he has given an unspoken endorsement for the wrong teaching (great list, Bill) that Warren promulgates.

    Ascol should not risk his ministry for the sake of someone else’s “anathemic” ministry.

  34. Are you sure Rick Warren support RCM as understood biblically, or as understood Purpose-Driven-ly? After all, Warren’s definition of church discipline is not to remove heretics and schismatics, but to remove ‘resistors”. Is this the definition of RCM that Southern Baptists would like to support?

  35. Before everyone gets excited about Rick Warren’s ‘covenant’ relationships at Saddleback, I would get a copy of the member ‘covenant’ they sign and read it closely. I have not seen it in a long time, but I do remember that part of it stated that members were not to critisize the church or the leadership. I think a big part of their ‘church discipline’ is getting rid of people who disagree publicly with anything Warren says.

    And yes, he does preach a different gospel than what is in scripture.

    By the way, who disciplines Warren?

  36. Man, Steve Camp is such a hater. I have honestly never read a nice comment by him.

  37. I am fairly new to the internet but read quite a few sites including this one. I wanted to share a few thoughts on this thread.

    I have been in pastoral ministry for many years and am concerned about Mr. Warren’s brand of gospel as well. It is shallow. Our church did not jump on the PDL bandwagon because of the lack of a deep gospel being represented. Some others here have pointed out as well Mr. Warren’s involvment in social or political issues. When our brother acts more like a politician rather than a pastor, there is some cause for concern. His AIDS conference that did feature Senator Obama was as well confusing to many of us in pastoral ministry.

    I also felt the need to at least defend in part Mr. Camp. Gavin, you may choose to disagree with Steve on this issue; but to call him a hater is going to far. In fact, I found his blog and his comments to be truthful, straightforward and full of grace. His comment here was not hate, but fact. I think you should be careful in how you quickly characterized this brother in the Lord.

    I will continue to pray for Mr. Warren and his church. As for this resolution, I am with the several on this thread that feel his name hurts Mr. Ascol’s excellent work.

    Thank you for letting me say a few words here on this issue.
    Robert

  38. Robert,

    In calling Steve Camp a ‘hater,’ I mean that he is always negative, always critical, always blasting brothers in Christ in many a comment thread on many a blog. Its usage was more the way it (hater) is used in pop culture…I don’t mean that he literally hates Rick Warren.

    But seriously, I have been reading Timmy’s blog and others for a few years now, and I have grown weary of seeing Mr. Camp pop up in comment threads to use his spiritual gift of ciriticism whenever the name Rick Warren or Joel Osteen or Mark Driscoll is mentioned.

    I, too, think Warren’s presentation of the gospel is shallow, but I applaud his effort to back Ascol’s resolution.

    Blessings,
    Gavin Brown

  39. Gavin
    I am sure that Timmy doesn’t want this thread to be about your feeling toward Mr. Camp.

    The issue here is simple: can Mr. Warren really represent an RCM conviction at his own church when even by your own admission he preaches a shallow gospel? He is not to be commended for such.

    And btw, there are many others on this thread who have voiced negative opinions about Mr. Warren’s name being in support of this resolution. There are also others who voiced negative opinion about Mr. Osteen as well – though Mr. Camp did not here. Why didn’t you mention them too?

    IMHO, I think you may be the one who has the “hater” problem here – not Mr. Camp. And if your measuring rod for negative commenting is about Osteen, Warren or Driscoll, then count me in as negative as well. You would also have to include men like John MacArthur, RC Sproul and Al Mohler with Mr. Camp. They all have voiced opinions of concern on those men too.

    I agree with Robert as well, let’s continue to pray for Mr. Warren and his church.

  40. William,

    I’m not sure how you concluded that my “measuring rod for negative commenting is about Osteen, Warren, or Driscoll,” simply because I mentioned their names.

    And you admonished me for taking a jab at Steve Camp and then gave it right back to me…classy.

    Steve Camp’s endless rants across the evangelical corner of the blogosphere speak for themselves.

    This is my last comment in this thread.

    Blessings,
    Gavin

  41. Dear Gavin,

    I had no real intention of responding at this thread (particularly as it pertains to Warren’s endorsement of the resolution)- my husband and I have discussed the post and the comments plenty offline, and I thought both of our views on this had already been well represented here by others already.

    However, your insulting comments toward Steve Camp have compelled me to say a thing or two. You say that Steve’s “endless rants” across the blogosphere speak for themselves – as if to say you are somehow validated in your rudeness toward him because you and others don’t like what it is he has to say. Now, I know Steve can speak for himself and defend himself, but I’m just really tired of reading this kind of cheap-shot, graceless, arrogant commenting towards a brother on a public format. While it is perfectly understandable that we will not all agree with one another’s opinions or views on certain things, it is never understandable or acceptable to see the kind of rudeness I often see when it comes to trashing Steve’s name. It’s intentionally hurtful, slanderous, and juvenile – and completely defenseless and unjustifiable.

    You say “In calling Steve Camp a ‘hater,’ I mean that he is always negative, always critical, always blasting brothers in Christ in many a comment thread on many a blog.”

    I find this rather striking, since Camp certainly isn’t the only one here saying what he has said. In fact, if you read back through the comments here, several people have agreed with his views – so does that make all of them “haters” too, or is that slanderous comment specially reserved for Steve? What I also find striking about this comment is your exagerration of the “always negative, always critical, always blasting brothers”. Do you actually read what he says, or do you just skip past the good stuff and zero in on the (rightly) critical and circumspect tone that he expresses? For that matter, have you taken the temperature of the evangelical church lately? Do you not see how LACK of discernment and chastisement and rebuke has led to the sorry, pitiful state that the church is in right now? It’s a shameful situation that our modern evangelical church is in, partly because of the unwillingness of more leaders in the church to say the things that ought to be said. As for Warren, Osteen and Driscoll, the criticism they receive is criticism they have earned themselves, and it is well deserved.

    William responded and said “And if your measuring rod for negative commenting is about Osteen, Warren or Driscoll, then count me in as negative as well. You would also have to include men like John MacArthur, RC Sproul and Al Mohler with Mr. Camp. They all have voiced opinions of concern on those men too.”

    You’ll have to count myself and my husband into that same “hater” camp, as well as my pastor and numerous other concerned Christians, that actually care enough about the integrity of our Lord’s church to have the courage to speak up and say what NEEDS to be said, in spite of the slamming that WILL come from the “oh let’s just appreciate everyone” crowd.

    For the record (not that it matters much, I’m sure) Warren endorsing this resolution means absolutely nothing, unless he’s willing also to stop holding hands with the world (and other religions) the way he does.

    Timmy Brister’s opening statement here includes “Some fundies are having a cow” as it pertains to Warren. I’m unclear who is meant by “fundies” or what they’re “having a cow” about (if that just means Warren in general or Warren allegedly commenting at Ascol’s blog – I’m not entirely convinced that’s really him anyway), but this is the sort of thing that is often said when folks who are rightly critical of the state of the evangelical church have the courage to speak up.

    Toward that end, I’m really curious what these kinds of folks who can’t handle some honest criticism would think of James White’s Pulpit Crimes? He doesn’t hold back in that book, but says exactly what needs to be said (the same exact way Camp does). Is brother White a hater too, or is he somehow exempt?

    I guess I’m just finally tired of the double standards, the fluff, the “you’re SO mean!”, sort of attitudes. The Christian church is in a sorry state and praise God for brothers and leaders in His church that have a backbone, and will say what needs to be said regardless of the “friendly” fire.

  42. Alright, I think I have had enough.

    For the first time in three years of blogging, I am closing the comments.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. The Boar’s Head Tavern - May 16, 2008

    [...] Rick Warren supports the Ascol resolution and says Saddleback in not what you think. Posted by: TommyMertonHead @ 2:04 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]

  2. False Brethern « Nogoofyzone’s Weblog - July 20, 2008

    [...] Look at this quote from Rick Warren.”We take membership extremely seriously at Saddleback Church, and people who don’t abide by the covenant are disciplined and removed.” source  http://timmybrister.com/2008/05/16/rick-warren-signs-on-to-ascols-resolution/ [...]