Not enough space here for me to really comment on such garbage. It’s continually amazing to me that guys like Warren are constantly criticized for evangelism techniques that obviously work. Is he perfect, No! Are there flaws in this type of process, YES! A prime example of this is the ‘lack of developing disciples vs reachin new converts’. However, Warren is-and-has-been willing to not only think outside the box, but actually GET out of the box himself in order to share God’s Word to a lost world. We should have half of the passion to reach the lost as Warren does.

Just to fan the flame, here’s a comment about Jim’s comment on the post over at oldtruth.com:

Here’s an interesting comment about my post, on a seeker blog:

“Not enough space here for me to really comment on such garbage. It’s continually amazing to me that guys like Warren are constantly criticized for evangelism techniques that obviously work. Is he perfect, No! Are there flaws in this type of process, YES! A prime example of this is the ‘lack of developing disciples vs reaching new converts’. However, Warren is-and-has-been willing to not only think outside the box, but actually GET out of the box himself in order to share God’s Word to a lost world. We should have half of the passion to reach the lost as Warren does.”

Here’s an obvious case of pragmatism. Warren’s methods are looked upon favorably because they are biblical? No. Because they are God-centered? No. Because “they work”? Yes! So whatever produces an outcome that matches what this individual wants, has to be the right method then.

Does Rick Warren have passion? I can agree with that. But as the evangelism analysis above shows, we have to conclude that it is passion and zeal with a lack of knowledge. That can be damaging to the very souls you are trying to save.

Posted by: Jim from OldTruth.com on Thursday, April 12, 2007

“evangelism techniques that obviously work.”

How does this statement square with the next?

“Is he perfect, No! Are there flaws in this type of process, YES! A prime example of this is the ‘lack of developing disciples vs reaching new converts’.

Is there a difference between a “disciple” and a “convert”? The writer admits that Warren’s techniques fail to “make disciples” (which is what Jesus told us to do). How, then, can he claim that Warren’s techniques “obviously work”?

I guess they do work for “church growth”.

Posted by: Puritan Lad on Thursday, April 12, 2007