Rick Warren's Salvation Video

I received an email from Rick Warren and Pastors.com last night.  Here's how it begins:

Dear friends,

I recently created a short video to explain exactly what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and posted it on our Purpose Driven Web site.  It's a simple presentation you can pass on to anyone you care about.

 

Rick goes on to provide a couple of links to the video, along with an encouragement to use them in a number of ways.

Here's the video:
Download salvation_low.wmv

.
Watch it and then post your thoughts.  I'd like to hear your response.

Blessings.

Comments

[Karin]

I think Warren has missed the point, again.

Following Jesus is not about being perfect, going to heaven or whether or not we should run our own lives.

Being responsible and accountable and in control of our lives is not sin.

Sin is when we put our own interests before others, when we are selfish and harm others by our slefish actions, when we let anger, jealousy and desire make us violent, critical, spiteful and generally unloving.

Being Jesus' disciple is about loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves, living in a way that respects the environment and treats other people with dignity and justice.

Making Jesus Lord of our lives is about obeying the principles Jesus taught and embodied in the way he lived - sumbitting to Jesus' way of doing things and God's perfect plan.

This may or may not get us into heaven, but that concern should be secondary.

I've just been reading Brian McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy and his chapter on being Missional. It sums it up beautifully in my opinion.

Of course if as a church or church leader you want to control people, not a Christ-like quality, btw, then telling people that wanting to be in control of their own lives is sin is a good ploy.

Jesus' way however is to leave us in control, but to suggest we look to him for guidance. We're in the driver's seat, but he'll read the map for us and tell us the best route if we ask him to.

[Seraphim]

I disagree with the previous poster. While I dislike the mcdonaldization of the church, I think he presented a basic gospel message.

God's peace

Seraphim

[Karin]

That depends on what you think the basic gospel message is, Seraphim. I don't think Jesus came primarily to save us as individuals from hell, although it might have been part of his purpose, but I doubt it.

Rather he came to inaugurate the Kingdom of Heaven whereby people in the here and now live by God's rules, care for Creation, make sure no one is lonely, or has no warm or decent clothes to wear or is going hungry or thirsty if they are able to do anything about it, don't take more than their fair share of the Earth's resources and generally live in a way that respects a love for the Creator, and God and Father of all mankind, and is loving towards all our fellow human beings whatever their race, culture or beliefs.

The Gospel is good news for the whole world and all areas of human life now on this Earth while we are still alive. There may be heaven to look forward to, but the point of Jesus' teaching was about how we live now.

The church should enable and encourage us to live as part of this Kingdom of God, church should not seek to threaten us or control us into obeying church leaders and believing exactly the same as them. If by living as part of God's Kingdom others want to join us, all well and good, but our primary aims should be living God's/Jesus' Way, not controlling fellow believers or winning new converts. It certainly shouldn't be about preaching a gospel of self interest: join us, agree with us, and say this prayer and you will go to heaven.

[Seraphim]

The Gospel is good news for the whole world and all areas of human life now on this Earth while we are still alive. There may be heaven to look forward to, but the point of Jesus' teaching was about how we live now.

hmm. Not sure the whole world is included in 'whosoever believeth in Him...' and Jesus must have missed your memo about his teaching being about now....

(Mat 6:19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

(Mat 6:20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

(Mat 6:21) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

My treasure,the gospel may be in the world, but not of it. Eternity starts here, but it's not about here

(1Jo 2:15) Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

(1Jo 2:16) For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

(1Jo 2:17) And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

God's peace

Seraphim

[Chris]

Karin, thanks for pointing out that...

"There may be heaven to look forward to, but the point of Jesus' teaching was about how we live now."

Isn't that the point of Jesus' model prayer?
"...Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth even as it is in heaven"

Rewards, for instance, may indeed await some on "that day", but only in response to how they live in the here and now. Even the scriptures that Seraphim has reminded us of actually seem to point to our ethical responsibilities in the here and now (e.g. laying up treasure in heaven is likely acheived by giving our here-and-now treasure to the poor).

[Chris]

"This may or may not get us into heaven,"

Karin, it seems that Jesus gave his followers a little more assurance than that.

[Seraphim]

Even the scriptures that Seraphim has reminded us of actually seem to point to our ethical responsibilities in the here and now (e.g. laying up treasure in heaven is likely acheived by giving our here-and-now treasure to the poor).

Like I said, eternity starts now. Being transformed by Christ and our hope for a New Heavens & a New Earth can only transform how we interact here and now. Being a Christian is Who we are and then What we do should flow from Who we are. It's not What we do that Makes us Who we are.

Alot of the time when I read stuff like what was posted, I have to wonder if Karin (and others) arn't making the same mistake Brian McLaren makes.

Here is what I think that Mistake is. The Messengers have failed us. The Community has failed us -- and not only failed us, but Spiritually Abused us. The arm of flesh has failed us... but rather than blame the Messengers we think that there is something wrong with the message.. and we need a New Kind of Christian or need to deconstruct or doubt or suspect the message.

To the point that when someone presents the Gospel message we paint them with the same broad stroke we painted those bad messengers.

I don't think we need a new kind of christian or a new message. We just need to -- somehow make sure we are worthier messengers and ambassadors of Christ.

God's Peace

Seraphim

[Karin]

I guess it's a case of seeing things, differently, Seraphim.

I've just started Brian McLaren's book, Geneous Orthodoxy (I'm about half way through), and I keep thinking, "yes, that's exactly how I see it".

Brian McLaren is certainly not mistaken so far as I've read. It's great to find someone who acknowledges that the church has distorted the Gospel message down the centuries/millenia but who isn't saying maybe Jesus isn't the Son of God in the sense people usually mean. It's so refreshing to find someone who has such a balanced message, too. While he acknowledges the faults of the Catholics, Protestans, Evangelicals etc, he finds something good to say about them all, too. He's not Evangelical (although he claims to be evangelical) but he's not so Liberal that there is no real room for Jesus Christ at the heart of his faith.

I've really been struggling with church for a while now. So much Evangelical teaching now seems quite wrong to me. Leaving my Evangelical church has helped, but I need a decent, inclusive, positive, Christ-centred theology, and McLaren seems to provide that, or will at least help me to build one, from what I've seen so far. The Anglican church I'm currently attending is also helpful, showing me a fresh and relevant interpretation of the Gospel message.

I'd like to read more of Brian McLaren and the book in the sidebar here looks like it might be next on my list.

[Karin]

Karin, it seems that Jesus gave his followers a little more assurance than that.

Chris, I hope you're right. There's just a lot I'm not so sure about these, days, although in many ways that has been quite a positive thing. I find I can trust in God's goodness more than whether I've ticked all the right boxes, and that seems better to me.

[Fr Matt]

"I don't think we need a new kind of christian or a new message. We just need to -- somehow make sure we are worthier messengers and ambassadors of Christ" Right on Seraphim!

I find a few difficulties. First this resenteation presents God as an uptight and anal character who is obsessed with perfection. It it based upon the Western "catholic" legal model of salvation and atonement and ignores the Eastern concept of "theosis" or "divination". He is talking about relationship but he is presenting a God who has relationship with perfection, not people. This presentation, while authentic and heartfelt in many ways is a pat regurgitation of evangelical-ese, four spiritual laws, stuff. It comes off as sahllow and unappealing. And it misses the point. The gospel is about restoring a breached relationship and the lengths God has and will go to to restore it. That relationship was between God and man and there was not just "fellowship" (which any evangelical presentation shallowly assumes) but a true and deep spiritual union between God and mankind. The eye of the soul of mankind, his very heart, was in communion with God continually and enjoyed a constant state of blessedness. However fear working itself out in sin severed this relationship and forever darkened mans capacity to walk in that constant state of blessed union with God. Fear entails judgement and judgement gets its power through the law (the demands of perfection. Jesus put to death those demands, he didnt merely meet them in our stead. Consequently he has removed the occassion to fear and the demands of perfection and, through faith and by His love, opened for us a new door through which we may enter back into a state of blessed communion with the Father. Once we are back in spiriutual communion with God we are being made like him, changed from within and the Kingdom is now "already but not yet" (proleptically) with us and we in it. The eye of the soul, our heart, is now filled again with the Light of God, being no longer darkened, and we can now see Him and the world as He meant for us to see it. This is salvation, this is eternal life.

[Seraphim]

I think there is some confusion about two things.

The Gate and the Way.

Entering the Gate, immediately your 'perspective' changes. Immediately you find yourself in a new country. As soon as you walk thru the Gate (weather you call this a 'decision' at an alter call, a private prayer, confirmation or baptism) you are a Christian.

Now that you have walked thru the Gate, you are to walk in the Way. The Journey of the Christian starts now and extends thru eternity.

The Good News of the Gospel is (to me anyway) how to walk thru the Gate. The rest of the Way -- we discover thru a life time of prayer, reading the Scriptures & the Church Fathers.

God's Peace

Seraphim

[Fr Matt]

Seraphim, i understand the distinction you make between the "gate" and the "way", however to me they are one and the same. To walk through the "gate" is to find the "Way" and to walk in it. But the issue at hand is wether or not Warrens presentation of the gospel is a good one. If the gate as he presents it leads to the "way" he presents a "way" that is a reduction of the Good News. I think the "Good news" is a lot better than the "way" he presents. I think that if that presentation were given to a 23 year old off the street it would be dismissed off hand. It is legal, narrow, and lacks mystery and transcendence. It would work really well on performance based yuppies, I imagine.