"Can't we all just get along?", says Warren.
"Should there be anything peculiar about a Christian attending a memorial events which express worship of a foreign god? Well, apparently not for Tricky Ricky. Tricky Ricky is famous for his promotion of What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) pseudo-Christian Social Gospel theology. What a mixed message he continues to deliver.
Jesus would attend a Jewish wedding. He did. He was Jewish after all. He attended Jewish festivals. They after all proclaim the Gospel and are not forbidden for Christians to participate in. But would he attend Ramadan? Participate in Shiva-Linga?
No he wouldn’t:
One thing that we have come to expect of Tricky Ricky is that he above everything, including Jesus Christ, that he desires that no one would be offended because of what he does or says.
Christians excepted, of course.
Apparently, Warren finds no real difference if he can attend to worship of a false god and not be convicted at heart.
The passage out of Luke, by the way, is not a generalist proclamation of God’s universal love in Christ toward all. The passage is exclusivistic and is related to Jesus’ quoting Isaiah 61.
The Scripture continues, “upon whom his favor rests,” and is why Paul is later seen relating the same thing. The enunciation is the anouncement of the Savior’s birth and the judgement of the world and the calling to himself a chosen family.
It is the proclamation of the day of judgement, also. So no, the Scripture is the opposite of “can’t we all just get along.”
It is rather, “repent or die in your sins, if you do not repent the wrath of God remains on you.”
Warren may have friends next door that he is eclectic in his relationship with, but if he hasn’t told them yet they are going to hell if they keep going on without repenting, then yes, he is a universalist, not a Christian, and could not care less about his neighbor. Warren has said that his Christianity is a gamble, and his money is on Jesus.
But what kind of Gospel portrays Jesus as just another number on a roulette wheel?"
And this man shall be a keynote speaker for John Piper soon?
"Piper ought to ask himself why, if he and Warren are only separated by styles and secondary issues and not primary issues of separation such as Warren’s denial of the exclusiveness of the Gospel (he said it wasn’t up to him but Jesus to decided about those who reject Jesus) the world loves Rick and doesn’t even know much about Piper.
Piper’s message is not popular, it will not be accepted by the world. Warren’s, on the other hand, is sufficiently nondescript to conform any mold the world wants to put it in. That is the problem with Warren, he looks and sounds no different from his unsaved neighbors. The only thing that separates them are traditions that have only historic relevance and no eternal import. As Warren has said before, “Try Jesus.”
The blasphemous use of Jesus as a commodity to be sold through product appeal, tells the whole story. I am hoping that Piper doesn’t view Warren’s kind of non-separation with favor.
A real problem, one that needs to be addressed, is what happens to credibility, positively and negatively, when pulpits are shared. Now someone might say that this is a conference, there is a podium, not a pulpit. Well, that goes to another question: when we offer a “Christian speakers event,” are we not gathering in the name of Christ (in this case it is for the expressed purpose of expounding upon the word)? And therefore, isn’t this gathering, be it called a conference, a seminar, or whatever, really a church, or at least functioning as one? Piper cannot remove himself from the tacit endorsing of Warren, nor can anyone one else, when the venue is billed as being representative of what the Bible teaches.
By granting equality in the pulpit, that is at the podium, the authority of the teacher is granted to all who enter there, and legitimates anything they say outside that venue."